Roddenberry on recasting
from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy in the
upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The Authorized
Biography of Gene Roddenberry"

Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful years
from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast
playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest as they say
tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/


So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry would
never do that!"
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

Kweeg wrote:
> Roddenberry on recasting
> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy
> in the upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The
> Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
>
> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful
> years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented
> new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest
> as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
>
>
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-
him-recasting/
>
>
> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry
> would never do that!"

Ah, but Roddenberry was only writing to "the fans", not to all *true* fans.

;)


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47d1b9b2$0$32042$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Kweeg wrote:
>> Roddenberry on recasting
>> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy
>> in the upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The
>> Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
>>
>> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful
>> years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented
>> new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest
>> as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
>>
>>
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-
> him-recasting/
>>
>>
>> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry
>> would never do that!"
>
> Ah, but Roddenberry was only writing to "the fans", not to all *true*
> fans.

There's nothing wrong with promoting, recasting, filming and distributing a
new Star Trek movie. If it has a decent plot, good acting, stellar
directing and world-class special effects. If not, then who cares? And
Roddenberry would have considered recasting *during* filming of Star Trek
depending on who had pissed him off that day!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47d1b9b2$0$32042$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Kweeg wrote:
> > Roddenberry on recasting
> > from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy
> > in the upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The
> > Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
> >
> > Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful
> > years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented
> > new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest
> > as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
> >
> >
>
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-
> him-recasting/
> >
> >
> > So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry
> > would never do that!"
>
> Ah, but Roddenberry was only writing to "the fans", not to all *true*
fans.
>
> ;)

LMFAO!
err.. I mean, "Praise be to Anybody, speaker for "All True Fans!"
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47d1b16f$0$26100$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47d1b9b2$0$32042$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Kweeg wrote:
> >> Roddenberry on recasting
> >> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy
> >> in the upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The
> >> Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
> >>
> >> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful
> >> years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented
> >> new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest
> >> as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-
> > him-recasting/
> >>
> >>
> >> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry
> >> would never do that!"
> >
> > Ah, but Roddenberry was only writing to "the fans", not to all *true*
> > fans.
>
> There's nothing wrong with promoting, recasting, filming and distributing
a
> new Star Trek movie. If it has a decent plot, good acting, stellar
> directing and world-class special effects. If not, then who cares? And
> Roddenberry would have considered recasting *during* filming of Star Trek
> depending on who had pissed him off that day!

Indeed.
But if ya look above your head the inside joke is still doing it's precision
acrobatics.
{{;-/>
(dono whether you saw it or not)

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:OxhAj.54934$pM4.30564@pd7urf1no...
> Roddenberry on recasting
> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy in
> the
> upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The Authorized
> Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
>
> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful years
> from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast
> playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest as they say
> tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
>
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/
>
>
> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry would
> never do that!"

My major issues with ST:XI are:

(a) yet another prequel (won't they learn what a disaster that ends up to
be)

(b) yet another reboot: when you think about it, ST:TMP WAS as reboot for
everything was changed. The ship, the technology, the overall look...POOF!
InstaChange. Add in the alteration of the Spock character after ST:TVH due
to the rebirth (both much more willing to listen to his emotional side and
much more comfortable in his own skin) and the TOS movies were certainly
"reboots" by any other name.

Now, factor in recent past histories:

(a (ii)) Star Trek prequels = Kiss Of Death

(c) Modern reinterpretations of Roddenberry's Star Trek = Satan's Curse

(d) Breaking canon = Chasm of Despair
(TOS's look was made "hard canon" by B&B thanks to the (ill planned, IMHO)
revisits in TNG / DS9)

(e) Average person's Star Trek saturation burnout = Musical Deck Chairs
aboard the Titanic

(f) Hollywood's recent history showing skill in carefully handling pop
culture icons = Russian Roulette


Total sum (sound of KA-CHING! register addition):
Not very promising

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47d1fba1$0$15173$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:OxhAj.54934$pM4.30564@pd7urf1no...
> > Roddenberry on recasting
> > from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy in
> > the
> > upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The Authorized
> > Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
> >
> > Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful
years
> > from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast
> > playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest as they say
> > tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
> >
> >
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/
> >
> >
> > So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry
would
> > never do that!"
>
> My major issues with ST:XI are:
>
> (a) yet another prequel (won't they learn what a disaster that ends up to
> be)
>
> (b) yet another reboot: when you think about it, ST:TMP WAS as reboot for
> everything was changed. The ship, the technology, the overall
look...POOF!
> InstaChange. Add in the alteration of the Spock character after ST:TVH
due
> to the rebirth (both much more willing to listen to his emotional side and
> much more comfortable in his own skin) and the TOS movies were certainly
> "reboots" by any other name.
>
> Now, factor in recent past histories:
>
> (a (ii)) Star Trek prequels = Kiss Of Death
>
> (c) Modern reinterpretations of Roddenberry's Star Trek = Satan's Curse
>
> (d) Breaking canon = Chasm of Despair
> (TOS's look was made "hard canon" by B&B thanks to the (ill planned, IMHO)
> revisits in TNG / DS9)
>
> (e) Average person's Star Trek saturation burnout = Musical Deck Chairs
> aboard the Titanic
>
> (f) Hollywood's recent history showing skill in carefully handling pop
> culture icons = Russian Roulette
>
>
> Total sum (sound of KA-CHING! register addition):
> Not very promising


No need to prove me right so fast. Can your crystal ball predict anything
else?

But since you want to go on about ST:XI, my major issues with it are:
Fanbois with NO inside information that whine, "It's gonna suck" when the
movie IS NOT EVEN ****ING OUT YET! These same people dismiss the opinions of
people WITH inside information; actors like Nimoy, writers like Gerrold, and
fans like Crawley say all things look positive....gosh who should we
believe?
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

If they thought they could have re-cast those rolls and got away with it,
Roddenbery would have had a bunch of cheaper actors working years ago.
But half the ticket buyers would have gone to see the latest Star Wars Movie
instead.

I'm no fanboi, but without the original Kirk, Spock, and Bones, there never
would have been any Star Trek movie in the first place.



"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:OxhAj.54934$pM4.30564@pd7urf1no...
> Roddenberry on recasting
> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy in
> the
> upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The Authorized
> Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
>
> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful years
> from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast
> playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest as they say
> tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
>
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/
>
>
> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry would
> never do that!"
> --
>
> Qapla'
> Kweeg
> Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
> "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
> 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
> "So say we all!"
>
>
>
>

Kweeg wrote:
> Roddenberry on recasting
> from 1981 letter to the fans regarding the death of Spock controversy in the
> upcoming Star Trek II, taken from "Star Trek:Creator - The Authorized
> Biography of Gene Roddenberry"
>
> Even if Nimoy never plays Spock again, I think it would be wonderful years
> from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast
> playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest as they say
> tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations.
>
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/
>
>
> So much for the continual fanboi cry of "sacrilege" and "Roddenberry would
> never do that!"

So. I assume this means you believe in actually paying attention to
direct Roddenberry quotes?

That would be a first for you, because you always dismiss them when I
employ them. :)

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%4qAj.57344$pM4.8660@pd7urf1no...
> No need to prove me right so fast. Can your crystal ball predict anything
> else?
>
> But since you want to go on about ST:XI, my major issues with it are:
> Fanbois with NO inside information that whine, "It's gonna suck" when the
> movie IS NOT EVEN ****ING OUT YET! These same people dismiss the opinions
> of
> people WITH inside information; actors like Nimoy, writers like Gerrold,
> and
> fans like Crawley say all things look positive....gosh who should we
> believe?

Hey hey - I'm not saying that it will be a "failure". I tried to say that -
**based upon historical prescient of the last 10 years of Trek** - the
results will be a movie "not very promising" ;-)

Take it easy on me, OK? ^_^ It can still be a tremendous success, I'm just
saying that the odds might be against it.

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> Hey hey - I'm not saying that it will be a "failure". I tried to say that -
> **based upon historical prescient of the last 10 years of Trek** - the results
> will be a movie "not very promising" ;-)

The track record of the most recent Trek films pretty much
sets the odds of *any* attempt at a new Trek movie being
a rather middling viewing experience at best, regardless
of whether it's sequel/prequel or who's in the cast. That
this one's not a B&B production and the people at the helm
have apparently actually seen TOS is a definite plus, but
the possibility that B&B were never fully to blame for my low
opinion of newtrek and the last four movies and there simply
isn't anything interesting left to be done with the Trek format
has been in my mind ever since STVI.

GeneK

GeneK wrote:
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> > Hey hey - I'm not saying that it will be a "failure". I tried to
> say that -
>> **based upon historical prescient of the last 10 years of Trek** -
>> the results will be a movie "not very promising" ;-)
>
> The track record of the most recent Trek films pretty much
> sets the odds of *any* attempt at a new Trek movie being
> a rather middling viewing experience at best, regardless
> of whether it's sequel/prequel or who's in the cast. That
> this one's not a B&B production and the people at the helm
> have apparently actually seen TOS is a definite plus, but
> the possibility that B&B were never fully to blame for my low
> opinion of newtrek and the last four movies and there simply
> isn't anything interesting left to be done with the Trek format
> has been in my mind ever since STVI.
>

I'm still of the mind (such as mine is) that they should have gone for a
complete reboot rather than what seems to be more of a prequel, if only for
the pleasure of sneaking into the cinema Anybody's watching it in to watch
his head explode.

But TBH I'm still rather excited about this thing. It's going to be
fabulous, or it's going to be awful, there's no in-between allowed for it.
That's a tingly prospect for me.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47d2cc03$0$22424$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> GeneK wrote:
> > "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> > > Hey hey - I'm not saying that it will be a "failure". I tried to
> > say that -
> >> **based upon historical prescient of the last 10 years of Trek** -
> >> the results will be a movie "not very promising" ;-)
> >
> > The track record of the most recent Trek films pretty much
> > sets the odds of *any* attempt at a new Trek movie being
> > a rather middling viewing experience at best, regardless
> > of whether it's sequel/prequel or who's in the cast. That
> > this one's not a B&B production and the people at the helm
> > have apparently actually seen TOS is a definite plus, but
> > the possibility that B&B were never fully to blame for my low
> > opinion of newtrek and the last four movies and there simply
> > isn't anything interesting left to be done with the Trek format
> > has been in my mind ever since STVI.
> >
>
> I'm still of the mind (such as mine is) that they should have gone for a
> complete reboot rather than what seems to be more of a prequel, if only
for
> the pleasure of sneaking into the cinema Anybody's watching it in to watch
> his head explode.

LOL!
Anybody doesn't go to theatres because only fools would waste their money
doing that when the movie will be free on TV the next year. Then again I'm
sure he doesn't watch the whole thing before he hakes up his mind, just like
he did with BSG, witch is just "stupid soft core porn."

> But TBH I'm still rather excited about this thing. It's going to be
> fabulous, or it's going to be awful, there's no in-between allowed for it.
> That's a tingly prospect for me.

Yep me too, and you're right it's gonna rock... or not... and at least the
uniforms can't suck as bad as the ones in TMP.

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> I'm still of the mind (such as mine is) that they should have gone for a
> complete reboot rather than what seems to be more of a prequel, if only for
> the pleasure of sneaking into the cinema Anybody's watching it in to watch
> his head explode.
>
> But TBH I'm still rather excited about this thing. It's going to be
> fabulous, or it's going to be awful, there's no in-between allowed for it.
> That's a tingly prospect for me.

Generally my view as well, it'd be better to just do a clean sheet
reconception so we can judge it on its own merits than to try to
tie it to past versions and lug all their baggage around.

It's entirely possible for any new Trek to be a middling experience
for me. I suppose that has less to do with the creative issues of
making a film like this than with the fact that Trek is more of a
nostalgia thing for me now than anything else. I don't think any
new work is likely to tick me off to the same extent that a cheap
cgi remuddling of TOS has, no matter how bad it may turn out to
be.

GeneK

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:IaDAj.60343$497.47938@newsfe14.phx...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>> I'm still of the mind (such as mine is) that they should have gone for a
>> complete reboot rather than what seems to be more of a prequel, if only
>> for
>> the pleasure of sneaking into the cinema Anybody's watching it in to
>> watch
>> his head explode.
>>
>> But TBH I'm still rather excited about this thing. It's going to be
>> fabulous, or it's going to be awful, there's no in-between allowed for
>> it.
>> That's a tingly prospect for me.
>
> Generally my view as well, it'd be better to just do a clean sheet
> reconception so we can judge it on its own merits than to try to
> tie it to past versions and lug all their baggage around.


Since it's going to be a "prequel", and nothing from TOS had actually
happened yet.
I'm not sure how much baggage they're going to have.

But the scary possibility is that "Enterprise" was made with the same "clean
sheet" concept.
The trouble is once they re-invent everything, it's not really Star Trek
anymore.

"AMUN" <spamblocker@dumbaswisconsincows.net> wrote...

> Since it's going to be a "prequel", and nothing from TOS had actually
> happened yet.
> I'm not sure how much baggage they're going to have.

If it's a prequel, then everything that happens "after" it is baggage.

> But the scary possibility is that "Enterprise" was made with the same "clean
> sheet" concept.
> The trouble is once they re-invent everything, it's not really Star Trek
> anymore.

Not TOS, no. But if TOS is the standard for "really Star Trek,"
then it's been "not really Star Trek anymore" since 1969.

GeneK

GeneK wrote:
> "AMUN" <spamblocker@dumbaswisconsincows.net> wrote...
>
>> Since it's going to be a "prequel", and nothing from TOS had actually
>> happened yet.
>> I'm not sure how much baggage they're going to have.
>
> If it's a prequel, then everything that happens "after" it is baggage.
>
>> But the scary possibility is that "Enterprise" was made with the
>> same "clean sheet" concept.
>> The trouble is once they re-invent everything, it's not really Star
>> Trek anymore.
>
> Not TOS, no. But if TOS is the standard for "really Star Trek,"
> then it's been "not really Star Trek anymore" since 1969.
>

Indeed. I guess just personally I've always seen TNG+ as "another series I
also enjoyed" (though not as much as TOS, truth be told). TNG was a
reimagining, effectively.

Maybe around 20 years is a maximum for any incarnation of a thing. The
longest running thing I can think of off the top of my head is Doctor Who,
and that had lost its sparkle after the 20 years mark. Or maybe I'd just got
too old for it, heh. A show carries the baggage of the era of its creation.
Just as the wrought melodrama of TOS woudn't have worked on 80s TV, so the
80s TNG just doesn't work 20 years later.

It's been long enough for TOS now to have slipped from "dated" to "retro
cool". I'm intrigued by what TOS elements we're going to see in the new
movie's production design, and what storytelling and direction etc style
we're going to see.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

GeneK wrote:
>
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> > Hey hey - I'm not saying that it will be a "failure". I tried to say
> that -
>> **based upon historical prescient of the last 10 years of Trek** - the
>> results will be a movie "not very promising" ;-)
>
> The track record of the most recent Trek films pretty much
> sets the odds of *any* attempt at a new Trek movie being
> a rather middling viewing experience at best, regardless
> of whether it's sequel/prequel or who's in the cast.

Still, I note that TOS seemed to translate better to the large movie
screen than TNG did.

Except for "First Contact," all the TOS movies were better than all the
TNG movies. Perhaps the TNG cast are just blander than the TOS cast?

So I wouldn't use the failures of Generations, Nemesis, etc., as
indicative of what Trek XI will be like.

Given the type of stuff Abrams does, I'll guess that Trek XI will be
most like ST VI: Undiscovered Country. That is, dark, tense and
brooding, with a hopeful ending to lead into a putative Trek XII.

And ST VI: Undiscovered Country was pretty good.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

AMUN wrote:
> If they thought they could have re-cast those rolls and got away with it,
> Roddenbery would have had a bunch of cheaper actors working years ago.
> But half the ticket buyers would have gone to see the latest Star Wars Movie
> instead.
>
> I'm no fanboi, but without the original Kirk, Spock, and Bones, there never
> would have been any Star Trek movie in the first place.

Sure.
But even the most die-hard Trek fan knows that you can't bring back the
dead.

Dee Kelley is dead.
James Doohan is dead.

TOS just isn't the same without McCoy and Scotty. So either you have to
finally stop making TOS productions, or else find another cast.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13t6bglf43ou6f4@corp.supernews.com...
> AMUN wrote:
>> If they thought they could have re-cast those rolls and got away with it,
>> Roddenbery would have had a bunch of cheaper actors working years ago.
>> But half the ticket buyers would have gone to see the latest Star Wars
>> Movie instead.
>>
>> I'm no fanboi, but without the original Kirk, Spock, and Bones, there
>> never would have been any Star Trek movie in the first place.
>
> Sure.
> But even the most die-hard Trek fan knows that you can't bring back the
> dead.
>
> Dee Kelley is dead.
> James Doohan is dead.
>
> TOS just isn't the same without McCoy and Scotty. So either you have to
> finally stop making TOS productions, or else find another cast.

Exactly!

But WHY do you have to continue making TOS productions? It's time has
passed, it is a part of our history...isn't it enough, can't it be left that
way?

Roddenberry's vision leaves PLENTY of room for different "spaces" in the
Star Trek universe. Why can't we move past TOS and seek Truly New Voyages,
instead of going "where we've gone before"??

Are we that limited spiritually and creatively that we are stuck only within
Roddenberry's specific creations? If so, have we not truly learned from
Roddenberry's Star Trek - that humanity can strive to improve itself, where
ever and when ever it may be?

And that is my basis of objection to ST:XI. Star Trek can mean - MUST
mean - so much more than the characters of TOS. It must be the SPIRIT of
humanity and promise that Star Trek emphasized. We should move on, always
remembering where we have been but seeking the Next Great Frontier.

The universe of Star Trek can hold infinite numbers of frontiers yet here we
are going backwards to revisit what has been before. Prequels will always
have inherent problems of characterization, canon and real-life alterations
of viewer perceptions to deal with - difficult problems to overcome while
still honoring where you have been before.

It is time to seek new adventures with new characters, at the edge of the
human experience.

Snake wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13t6bglf43ou6f4@corp.supernews.com...
>> AMUN wrote:
>>> If they thought they could have re-cast those rolls and got away with it,
>>> Roddenbery would have had a bunch of cheaper actors working years ago.
>>> But half the ticket buyers would have gone to see the latest Star Wars
>>> Movie instead.
>>>
>>> I'm no fanboi, but without the original Kirk, Spock, and Bones, there
>>> never would have been any Star Trek movie in the first place.
>> Sure.
>> But even the most die-hard Trek fan knows that you can't bring back the
>> dead.
>>
>> Dee Kelley is dead.
>> James Doohan is dead.
>>
>> TOS just isn't the same without McCoy and Scotty. So either you have to
>> finally stop making TOS productions, or else find another cast.
>
> Exactly!
>
> But WHY do you have to continue making TOS productions? It's time has
> passed, it is a part of our history...isn't it enough, can't it be left that
> way?
>
> Roddenberry's vision leaves PLENTY of room for different "spaces" in the
> Star Trek universe. Why can't we move past TOS and seek Truly New Voyages,
> instead of going "where we've gone before"??

Sigh.
We have beaten this subject to death already.

Let me summarize the arguments:

Trek has a remarkably well laid out timeline from the Archer/ENT era out
through at least the VOY era.

Most of that timeline has already been well explored, between ENT, TOS,
TNG, DS9, VOY and the various movies. What's left to do?

And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully
explored. Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come to an
end some day. What do you show then?


> We should move on, always
> remembering where we have been but seeking the Next Great Frontier.

The "next great frontier" starts to look a lot like "Dune" or
"Foundation" or "Star Wars"--a Galactic Empire, after the entire Galaxy
has been explored and settled. But guess what, that's already been done
too.



>
> The universe of Star Trek can hold infinite numbers of frontiers

No. It's *NOT* "infinite" because the Galaxy is not infinite. And our
capacity to explore continues to exponentiate.




--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

In article <13t6bdc864ca87d@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Except for "First Contact," all the TOS movies were better than all the
> TNG movies. Perhaps the TNG cast are just blander than the TOS cast?

No, you can place the place square on Rick Berman.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13t6kbg2048a749@corp.supernews.com...
> Sigh.
> We have beaten this subject to death already.
>
> Let me summarize the arguments:
>
> Trek has a remarkably well laid out timeline from the Archer/ENT era out
> through at least the VOY era.
>
> Most of that timeline has already been well explored, between ENT, TOS,
> TNG, DS9, VOY and the various movies. What's left to do?
>
> And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
> eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully explored.
> Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come to an end some
> day. What do you show then?

Incorrect. That's what *I* am talking about - fixed thinking.

1) At Star Trek speeds, it would probably take close to 300 to 1000 YEARS to
"fully" explore the Milky Way galaxy. It was said that Voyager would take
75 years to get back to the Alpha quadrant at top warp speed, over warp
9.3 - and that is a direct line, with no exploration of the vast, ful areas
of the Delta quadrant. Multiple 75 years times the dimensional matrix of
the quadrant, time to explore, deal with situations, establish diplomatic
channels...just one quadrant would take two to three generations. The Milky
Way has 4 quadrants.

2) Star Trek is not just about the vast emptiness of space beyond - it is
about the HUMAN condition inside all of us. The locale is just a convenient
placement for the discovery of the problems of being human. Pick one area -
ANY area - and a tremendous number of stories about the human condition can
be told. TNG was proof of this; many TNG episodes actually took place
within the known confines of the Alpha quadrant, far away from the
frontiers. And yet, in many stories, we had fine drama.

> The "next great frontier" starts to look a lot like "Dune" or "Foundation"
> or "Star Wars"--a Galactic Empire, after the entire Galaxy has been
> explored and settled. But guess what, that's already been done too.

Only if you do not have the imagination to develop new scenarios, new
stories, within the unknown. It is EASY to pick what is known and just
re-develop a new spin - I am asking for far more creativity, going into what
has not been covered before.


>> The universe of Star Trek can hold infinite numbers of frontiers
>
> No. It's *NOT* "infinite" because the Galaxy is not infinite. And our
> capacity to explore continues to exponentiate.

YES, it is. Even Star Trek physics has an infinite ability to travel. This
is a known fact. We had 7 years of Voyager stories trying to deal with this
very physical fact. It is CANON. The Gamma quadrant is barely known to the
Federation, the Delta quadrant passed through as quickly as possible. The
Beta quadrant is home to what is, in TNG times, is an enemy - the Romulan
Star Empire - and little is known of it at all

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Gamma_Quadrant

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Beta_Quadrant

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Delta_Quadrant

Unless a dramatic evolution of Federation warp technology occurs, the
exploration of these areas will take centuries. And, even if Transwarp is
achieved by the Federation, we still have to deal with the unknowns of the
space once we get there.


It's a COPOUT to say that by the 25th Century there will be nothing "worth
looking at".

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
> Unless a dramatic evolution of Federation warp technology occurs, the
> exploration of these areas will take centuries. And, even if Transwarp is
> achieved by the Federation, we still have to deal with the unknowns of the
> space once we get there.
>
> It's a COPOUT to say that by the 25th Century there will be nothing "worth
> looking at".

I think the problem with this arguement is that it's about Star Trek,
not NTV (NASA TV). Space almost certainly contains a nearly
infinite number of "things worth looking at," but Trek is not based
on them, but on dramatic stories involving human characters, and
there's not nearly as many fresh people-based stories to tell as
there are interesting "things" in the galaxy to look at. The viewing
audience will be yelling "Simpsons did it" long before the limits
of the Milky Way have been reached.

GeneK

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:54:39 -0500, "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
>eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully
>explored. Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come to an
>end some day. What do you show then?

"The galaxy is a very big place."

We will never reach the point where it is fully explored. We may run out of
meaningful stories to tell, but that is not the same thing.

George Peatty wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:54:39 -0500, "Steven L."
> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
>> eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully
>> explored. Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come
>> to an end some day. What do you show then?
>
> "The galaxy is a very big place."

And there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Not to mention an infinite
number of parallel universus.

>
> We will never reach the point where it is fully explored. We may run
> out of meaningful stories to tell, but that is not the same thing.

True.
But the /way/ stories are being told can be explored. To some extend.


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:u7FAj.17739$mI6.7973@newsfe08.phx...
>
> "AMUN" <spamblocker@dumbaswisconsincows.net> wrote...
>
>> Since it's going to be a "prequel", and nothing from TOS had actually
>> happened yet.
>> I'm not sure how much baggage they're going to have.
>
> If it's a prequel, then everything that happens "after" it is baggage.
>
>> But the scary possibility is that "Enterprise" was made with the same
>> "clean sheet" concept.
>> The trouble is once they re-invent everything, it's not really Star Trek
>> anymore.
>
> Not TOS, no. But if TOS is the standard for "really Star Trek,"
> then it's been "not really Star Trek anymore" since 1969.
>
> GeneK


I think the big argument here is are those who only really liked TOS,
"fanboi's" ?
However the group I post to is "alt.tv.star-trek.tos", so perhaps others
that also do, think that TOS is the only real Star Trek.

On - alt.startek.ALL_THE_SERIES' ". There may be more varied opinions.
And everyone else is entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong for
not agreeing with me.

AMUN wrote:
> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:u7FAj.17739$mI6.7973@newsfe08.phx...
>>
>> "AMUN" <spamblocker@dumbaswisconsincows.net> wrote...
>>
>>> Since it's going to be a "prequel", and nothing from TOS had
>>> actually happened yet.
>>> I'm not sure how much baggage they're going to have.
>>
>> If it's a prequel, then everything that happens "after" it is
>> baggage.
>>> But the scary possibility is that "Enterprise" was made with the
>>> same "clean sheet" concept.
>>> The trouble is once they re-invent everything, it's not really Star
>>> Trek anymore.
>>
>> Not TOS, no. But if TOS is the standard for "really Star Trek,"
>> then it's been "not really Star Trek anymore" since 1969.
>>
>> GeneK
>
>
> I think the big argument here is are those who only really liked TOS,
> "fanboi's" ?
> However the group I post to is "alt.tv.star-trek.tos", so perhaps
> others that also do, think that TOS is the only real Star Trek.
>
> On - alt.startek.ALL_THE_SERIES' ". There may be more varied
> opinions. And everyone else is entitled to their opinions, even if
> they are wrong for not agreeing with me.

Star Trek (TOS) *is* the only /pure/ Star Trek. When they were the only game
in town they didn't even need the adage 'tos'.
Everything else is merely a derivative. /Based upon/ (they say so
themselves).

Sometimes it (New Trek) works. Various TNG episodes, great chunks of Deep
Space Nine (the best of modern Trek) and some fluffs of Voyager and whiffs
of Enterprise.


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13t6bglf43ou6f4@corp.supernews.com...
> AMUN wrote:
>> If they thought they could have re-cast those rolls and got away with it,
>> Roddenbery would have had a bunch of cheaper actors working years ago.
>> But half the ticket buyers would have gone to see the latest Star Wars
>> Movie instead.
>>
>> I'm no fanboi, but without the original Kirk, Spock, and Bones, there
>> never would have been any Star Trek movie in the first place.
>
> Sure.
> But even the most die-hard Trek fan knows that you can't bring back the
> dead.
>
> Dee Kelley is dead.
> James Doohan is dead.
>
> TOS just isn't the same without McCoy and Scotty. So either you have to
> finally stop making TOS productions, or else find another cast.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.



I think that's the point a lot of us are trying to make.
Without the original cast, it's just not Star Trek no matter what they name
it.

It would be as silly as remaking "Forbidden Planet" ten times without Robby
The Robot.
Or Lost in Space without the bubble-headed (B-9), and a woosie Dr.Smith
playing off each other.
Oh wait, they tried that didn't they ?....And how did that turn out ?
Or just getting too far from the original plot,......Return to Gilligans
Island comes to mind.

Even Sylvester Stallone (sp?) knew enough to give up on the "Rocky" movies.

It may be a passable sci-fi movie.
But it will never be Star Trek anymore.

> Even Sylvester Stallone (sp?) knew enough to give up on the "Rocky" movies.


Not to mention the "Rambo" movies. I'm waiting for his remake of
"Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot." :-)

-Al-

George Peatty wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:54:39 -0500, "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
>> eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully
>> explored. Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come to an
>> end some day. What do you show then?
>
> "The galaxy is a very big place."
>
> We will never reach the point where it is fully explored. We may run out of
> meaningful stories to tell, but that is not the same thing.

Go back and read my post where I used the word "exponentiate."

If the capacity of the Federation to explore planets doubles every 10
years, then within 100 years (the early 26th century), they will have
explored the entire Galaxy.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Snake wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13t6kbg2048a749@corp.supernews.com...
>> Sigh.
>> We have beaten this subject to death already.
>>
>> Let me summarize the arguments:
>>
>> Trek has a remarkably well laid out timeline from the Archer/ENT era out
>> through at least the VOY era.
>>
>> Most of that timeline has already been well explored, between ENT, TOS,
>> TNG, DS9, VOY and the various movies. What's left to do?
>>
>> And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
>> eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully explored.
>> Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come to an end some
>> day. What do you show then?
>
> Incorrect. That's what *I* am talking about - fixed thinking.
>
> 1) At Star Trek speeds, it would probably take close to 300 to 1000 YEARS to
> "fully" explore the Milky Way galaxy. It was said that Voyager would take
> 75 years to get back to the Alpha quadrant at top warp speed, over warp
> 9.3 - and that is a direct line, with no exploration of the vast, ful areas
> of the Delta quadrant. Multiple 75 years times the dimensional matrix of
> the quadrant, time to explore, deal with situations, establish diplomatic
> channels...just one quadrant would take two to three generations. The Milky
> Way has 4 quadrants.
>
> 2) Star Trek is not just about the vast emptiness of space beyond - it is
> about the HUMAN condition inside all of us. The locale is just a convenient
> placement for the discovery of the problems of being human. Pick one area -
> ANY area - and a tremendous number of stories about the human condition can
> be told. TNG was proof of this; many TNG episodes actually took place
> within the known confines of the Alpha quadrant, far away from the
> frontiers. And yet, in many stories, we had fine drama.
>
>> The "next great frontier" starts to look a lot like "Dune" or "Foundation"
>> or "Star Wars"--a Galactic Empire, after the entire Galaxy has been
>> explored and settled. But guess what, that's already been done too.
>
> Only if you do not have the imagination to develop new scenarios, new
> stories, within the unknown. It is EASY to pick what is known and just
> re-develop a new spin - I am asking for far more creativity, going into what
> has not been covered before.
>
>
>>> The universe of Star Trek can hold infinite numbers of frontiers
>> No. It's *NOT* "infinite" because the Galaxy is not infinite. And our
>> capacity to explore continues to exponentiate.
>
> YES, it is. Even Star Trek physics has an infinite ability to travel. This
> is a known fact. We had 7 years of Voyager stories trying to deal with this
> very physical fact. It is CANON. The Gamma quadrant is barely known to the
> Federation, the Delta quadrant passed through as quickly as possible.

That doesn't matter.

Because as the Federation continues to expand, it will continue to
include new spacefaring races that have already got the capacity to
explore their respective quadrants.

And then those spacefaring races will do their *own* exploration and
find their own "new life and new civilizations." Without human help.

And so on.

HUMANS will never run out of places to go. But the Federation isn't
composed only of humans. And eventually there will come a point when
the exploration done by humans is only a tiny minority of the total
activity in the Federation. And the rest of the Galaxy will tell
humanity to stay in our Quadrant where we belong and let them handle the
rest.

This Galaxy does *NOT* belong to the *human* race to do with as it wants.

That's a problem Roddenberry didn't have to face because in the 23rd
century, Earth is still a permanent member of the Federation Council and
seems to do most of the heavy lifting. But that's only because it
started in this local part of the Galaxy and spread outward. But as the
Federation grows to encompass most of the Galaxy, an Earth-centric,
Earth-dominated Federation is no longer going to be sustainable.

And the concept of HUMANS exploring the Galaxy is no longer going to
make much sense. At some point, the Galactic races are going to realize
that they outnumber us--and don't need us.



--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <13t6bdc864ca87d@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Except for "First Contact," all the TOS movies were better than all the
>> TNG movies. Perhaps the TNG cast are just blander than the TOS cast?
>
> No, you can place the place square on Rick Berman.

Then I'm still led to the same conclusion: The fact that the TNG movies
were mostly flops doesn't tell us anything about Trek XI, since Berman
is not involved with Trek XI.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L. wrote:
> Snake wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13t6kbg2048a749@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Sigh.


<snip>

> That doesn't matter.
>
> Because as the Federation continues to expand, it will continue to
> include new spacefaring races that have already got the capacity to
> explore their respective quadrants.

The moment they are reached, their quadrants are by definition already being
explored.
They (potential UFP members) don't get invited by long distance
intragalactic phone calls.

>
> And then those spacefaring races will do their *own* exploration and
> find their own "new life and new civilizations." Without human help.

They might.
They might have done so /already/ before they made contact with the UFP.

>
> And so on.
>
> HUMANS will never run out of places to go. But the Federation isn't
> composed only of humans.

Yes, exactly.
But Starfleet (UFP's executive branche) is even in the 24th century mostly a
Homo Sapiens club.
Starfleet is a /tool/ of the *UFP*.


> And eventually there will come a point when
> the exploration done by humans is only a tiny minority of the total
> activity in the Federation.

That is only logical.


> And the rest of the Galaxy will tell
> humanity to stay in our Quadrant where we belong and let them handle
> the rest.

What makes humanity so special that you would devide the Galaxy in humans
and non-humans?
Or the Federation in humans and non-humans?
Or the Alpha quadrant in humans and non-humans?
If the humans would be told to stay within the AQ, does this also mean the
Vulcans and the Andorians have to?
And what about the Klingons and the Romulans?
Should the Dominion be told to stick to the Gamma Quadrant?
Who would tell them?


That makes no sense.

The non-humans are not one big uniform blob.



>
> This Galaxy does *NOT* belong to the *human* race to do with as it
> wants.

Why this emphasis on humans?

>
> That's a problem Roddenberry didn't have to face because in the 23rd
> century, Earth is still a permanent member of the Federation Council

'Permanent member'?
There are members that are not permanent?
Remember this is not an exact copy of the UN.


> and seems to do most of the heavy lifting. But that's only because it
> started in this local part of the Galaxy and spread outward. But as
> the Federation grows to encompass most of the Galaxy, an
> Earth-centric, Earth-dominated Federation is no longer going to be
> sustainable.

Hmmm... The UFP might join a 'common wealth'. ;-)

>
> And the concept of HUMANS exploring the Galaxy is no longer going to
> make much sense. At some point, the Galactic races are going to
> realize that they outnumber us--and don't need us.

And what makes them so special?
You seem to keep on dividing the galaxy between an 'us' and a 'them'. Why?

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

Steven L. wrote:
> George Peatty wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:54:39 -0500, "Steven L."
>> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And if you go even further into the future, to the 25th century, you
>>> eventually reach a point where the entire Galaxy has been fully
>>> explored. Like any other frontier, the "final frontier" must come
>>> to an end some day. What do you show then?
>>
>> "The galaxy is a very big place."
>>
>> We will never reach the point where it is fully explored. We may
>> run out of meaningful stories to tell, but that is not the same
>> thing.
>
> Go back and read my post where I used the word "exponentiate."
>
> If the capacity of the Federation to explore planets doubles every 10
> years, then within 100 years (the early 26th century), they will have
> explored the entire Galaxy.

And the rest of the universe?


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:48KAj.63851$ov5.878@newsfe15.phx...
> I think the problem with this arguement is that it's about Star Trek,
> not NTV (NASA TV). Space almost certainly contains a nearly
> infinite number of "things worth looking at," but Trek is not based
> on them, but on dramatic stories involving human characters, and
> there's not nearly as many fresh people-based stories to tell as there are
> interesting "things" in the galaxy to look at. The viewing
> audience will be yelling "Simpsons did it" long before the limits
> of the Milky Way have been reached.

LOL

Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
>> Snake wrote:
>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13t6kbg2048a749@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Sigh.
> Starfleet is a /tool/ of the *UFP*.
>

So far as it's portrayed, Starfleet apparently runs the UFP. It's a
communist military dictatorship, at least after TOS it is. Ever seen them
have an election? Ever seen any checks and balances on Starfleet authority?


Ian

Jaxtraw wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>> Snake wrote:
>>>> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:13t6kbg2048a749@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> Sigh.
>> Starfleet is a /tool/ of the *UFP*.
>>
>
> So far as it's portrayed, Starfleet apparently runs the UFP. It's a
> communist military dictatorship, at least after TOS it is. Ever seen
> them have an election? Ever seen any checks and balances on Starfleet
> authority?
>

They mentioned the president being elected on Deep Space Nine I believe.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> So far as it's portrayed, Starfleet apparently runs the UFP. It's a
> communist military dictatorship, at least after TOS it is. Ever seen them
> have an election? Ever seen any checks and balances on Starfleet authority?

In TOS we have several instances of officials from the
civilian Federation government coming aboard with the
authority to override Starfleet authority. This actually
makes the TOS depiction of Starfleet one of a military
force with even less authority than those in our time
(ever hear of a US senator or a UK MP having the
authority to give direct orders to a commander in their
military? I haven't). The reason we never heard about
things like elections was that GR didn't want to have
the plots burdened by discussions of what the political
system of the future was, probably for fear that it would
get the same ratings as election coverage.

By the time we get to newtrek, however, the situation
is pretty much as you describe it. The only instance
I can think of that suggests otherwise is in DS9's
"Paradise Lost," where a rogue Starfleet conspiracy
uses force to try to overthrow the civilian government.

GeneK

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:UgWAj.36536$H05.14565@newsfe06.phx...

>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
>> So far as it's portrayed, Starfleet apparently runs the UFP. It's a
>> communist military dictatorship, at least after TOS it is. Ever seen them
>> have an election? Ever seen any checks and balances on Starfleet
>> authority?
>
> In TOS we have several instances of officials from the
> civilian Federation government coming aboard with the
> authority to override Starfleet authority. This actually
> makes the TOS depiction of Starfleet one of a military
> force with even less authority than those in our time
> (ever hear of a US senator or a UK MP having the
> authority to give direct orders to a commander in their
> military? I haven't). The reason we never heard about
> things like elections was that GR didn't want to have
> the plots burdened by discussions of what the political
> system of the future was, probably for fear that it would
> get the same ratings as election coverage.
>
> By the time we get to newtrek, however, the situation
> is pretty much as you describe it. The only instance
> I can think of that suggests otherwise is in DS9's
> "Paradise Lost," where a rogue Starfleet conspiracy
> uses force to try to overthrow the civilian government.



It would be more logical if the UFP system ran like the UN - member nations
sent ambassadors, who then elect a president for certain durations. It is
reasonable to assume that every individual in the entire Federation - over
150 individual systems - does not elect a UFP president; the logistics of
counting probably way over 100 trillion votes would simply stagger the mind



The Prime Directive states that the Federation cannot interfere within
member government's sovereignty. Therefore the UFP president's decision
should only be directed towards the member's government system, who then
takes that into account, rather than be directed towards the individuals of
each member (a la UN or a republic) except in matters of extreme emergency



http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets

"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:HpSAj.72037$FO1.7153@edtnps82...
>> Even Sylvester Stallone (sp?) knew enough to give up on the "Rocky"
>> movies.
>
>
> Not to mention the "Rambo" movies. I'm waiting for his remake of "Stop Or
> My Mom Will Shoot." :-)
>
> -Al-

But at least it wasn't "Stop or Rambo's Mom will shoot".
(not that that might not have been a better movie)

Or how about "Stop or my Klingon Mom will bat-leth(sp?) you"

By coincidence "Insurrection" was on TV today, and I had nothing better to
do, so watched it again.
Star Trek ???? Naaaaaa.

The fact it stunk had little to do with no Kirk or Spock.
It simply was a silly plot that never should have been made into a movie.

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> It would be more logical if the UFP system ran like the

I think this is precisely the discussion that GR wanted to
avoid having onscreen, for obvious reasons. It's boring.

GeneK

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:yCZAj.44155$kp6.27641@newsfe07.phx...
>
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> It would be more logical if the UFP system ran like the
>
> I think this is precisely the discussion that GR wanted to
> avoid having onscreen, for obvious reasons. It's boring.

I don't know - there must certainly be at least ONE good political intrigue
story built in to that somewhere (beyond ST:VI). But would any of our stuck
in the mud screenwriters think of this, instead of re-hashing Kirk / Spock
again?

Nooooo...

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
> I don't know - there must certainly be at least ONE good political intrigue >
> story built in to that somewhere (beyond ST:VI).

Political intrigue, possibly. Dissertations on the workings
of future political systems, no way.

GeneK

In article <13t81c9nandmfa9@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <13t6bdc864ca87d@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Except for "First Contact," all the TOS movies were better than all the
> >> TNG movies. Perhaps the TNG cast are just blander than the TOS cast?
> >
> > No, you can place the place square on Rick Berman.
>
> Then I'm still led to the same conclusion: The fact that the TNG movies
> were mostly flops doesn't tell us anything about Trek XI, since Berman
> is not involved with Trek XI.

Agreed.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:48KAj.63851$ov5.878@newsfe15.phx...
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
>> Unless a dramatic evolution of Federation warp technology occurs, the
>> exploration of these areas will take centuries. And, even if Transwarp
>> is achieved by the Federation, we still have to deal with the unknowns of
>> the space once we get there.
>> It's a COPOUT to say that by the 25th Century there will be nothing
>> "worth looking at".
>
> I think the problem with this arguement is that it's about Star Trek,
> not NTV (NASA TV). Space almost certainly contains a nearly
> infinite number of "things worth looking at," but Trek is not based
> on them, but on dramatic stories involving human characters, and
> there's not nearly as many fresh people-based stories to tell as there are
> interesting "things" in the galaxy to look at. The viewing
> audience will be yelling "Simpsons did it" long before the limits
> of the Milky Way have been reached.
>
> GeneK
>

The Simpsons already did a movie that stinks. <g>

"AMUN" <spamblocker@dumbaswisconsincows.net> wrote
> The Simpsons already did a movie that stinks. <g>

There, see what I mean? :)

GeneK