FLM films - My Webpage

2000-04-10 00:00:00 - a question - (Michele <belanna@uswest.net>)


OK how is ds9 and voyager not like what roddenberry wanted? I am totally lost on that aspect. I think they do go along with what he wanted. Of course we might say the shows we have are a little more realistic and in my opinion better then the original. ( please don't flame me ) Sulu is really intent on the show based on him. Is it me or does he have a ego like shatner does. In an article that trektoday has he makes it sound like all the fans want the show, and those who don't didnt believe that star trek would be a hit. Either way the people who are wanting the sulu show are picketing paramount on the 22nd to make them listen to them. Something tells me there won't be a whole lot and not too many will listen. Michele

2000-04-10 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Michele wrote in message <38F276B6.F8709283@uswest.net>... >OK how is ds9 and voyager not like what roddenberry wanted? >I am totally lost on that aspect. I think they do go along >with what he wanted. Of course we might say the shows we >have are a little more realistic and in my opinion better >then the original. ( please don't flame me ) > Get me a match! <g> DS9 was the anti-Roddenberry, Voyager strays a bit less from his vision. Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, where there are no serious conflicts between characters. He also tended to promote a human-kind with no money and no religion. As we know, DS9 had humans fighting an ongoing war, had religious plots, multiple conflicts between characters, etc, etc. Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably appreciate. >Sulu is really intent on the show based on him. Is it me or >does he have a ego like shatner does. In an article that >trektoday has he makes it sound like all the fans want the >show, and those who don't didnt believe that star trek would >be a hit. Either way the people who are wanting the sulu >show are picketing paramount on the 22nd to make them listen >to them. Something tells me there won't be a whole lot and >not too many will listen. > I haven't read the article, but I wouldn't accuse Takei of a Shatner-ego. There is a movement of fans that is trying to convince Paramount to make a show around Sulu. I'm sure Takei is just adding his own sales pitch, for the sake of a steady paycheck. (Outside Trek, he hasn't worked that much the last 30 years). -Havoc >Michele

2000-04-10 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Michele <belanna@uswest.net>)


havoc wrote: > > Michele wrote in message <38F276B6.F8709283@uswest.net>... > >OK how is ds9 and voyager not like what roddenberry wanted? > >I am totally lost on that aspect. I think they do go along > >with what he wanted. Of course we might say the shows we > >have are a little more realistic and in my opinion better > >then the original. ( please don't flame me ) > > > > Get me a match! <g> > > DS9 was the anti-Roddenberry, Voyager strays a bit less from his vision. > Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, > where there are no serious conflicts between characters. He also tended to > promote a human-kind with no money and no religion. As we know, DS9 had > humans fighting an ongoing war, had religious plots, multiple conflicts > between characters, etc, etc. > > Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably appreciate. > But then couldn't we say Roddenberry had a unrealistic view of the future then. I felt there was too much conflict on DS9 but then again I really didn't care for the whole war thing. Other then that it was a good show. Voyager, what do you expect you put them in an area that they aren't familiar with. OF course you will have conflicts. I wish they had more peaceful aliens and not everyone out to kill the poor characters. This is also a good show. It is weird but I still don't get how the tos and tng fans would not watch Ds9 and voyager. On the outside it looks like the same premise of the tos series. At least you would say voyager is, to seek out new life etc. Michele

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (5er <5er_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <38F39A79.5F1D7037@ucs.net>, havoc says... > >Michele wrote: > >> 5er wrote: >> > >> > In article <sf62gjarcqv148@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" says... >> > > >> > >Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans >> (especially >> > >those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and >> Voyager. DS9 was >> > >a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But >> Voyager >> > >mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. >> > >> > DS9 was definitely a different kind of Trek. For one, I don't think >> I ever >> > heard the term "Prime Directive" mentioned during its later years, >> even though >> > you could see technical violations all over the place. Also, there >> was almost >> > no space exploration by the time Worf joined the show. But who >> cares? I loved >> > it! >> >> I don't remember the prime directive being mentioned either. > >Actually, I found they followed the Prime Directive more faithfully than >Voyager, although I can see confusion as to what is covered by the Prime >Directive. I always assumed the PD applies prior to Federation >relations with a planet. DS9 had very few such First Contact >situation. You can't "not interfere" with someone whom you're at war >with. > >OTOH, every contact for Voyager is a first contact, which is why I >always assumed that the PD applied (or should apply) strictly. Actually, I was referring to what Sisko did to get the Romulans into the war, not to mention the fact that at least one Admiral collaborated with Secion 31 to install a Federation puppet into a high position.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


5er <5er_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message <8d0ef7$q76@drn.newsguy.com>... >> >>Actually, I found they followed the Prime Directive more faithfully than >>Voyager, although I can see confusion as to what is covered by the Prime >>Directive. I always assumed the PD applies prior to Federation >>relations with a planet. DS9 had very few such First Contact >>situation. You can't "not interfere" with someone whom you're at war >>with. >> >>OTOH, every contact for Voyager is a first contact, which is why I >>always assumed that the PD applied (or should apply) strictly. > >Actually, I was referring to what Sisko did to get the Romulans into the war, >not to mention the fact that at least one Admiral collaborated with Secion 31 to >install a Federation puppet into a high position. > Ahhh.... ok.... Well, in all likelihood a violation of Federation law, but I doubt either action would involve the Prime Directive. Your first example is sabotage against an equal power (and a previous enemy with whom the Federation has had an ongoing relationship of hundreds of years). The second example is purely internal to the Federation. Come on Fiver.... haven't you taken Federation Law and the Prime Directive yet? I thought it was on the California bar exam..... -Havoc Who has to catch up on CLE credit or get disbarred, lol.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - ("Michael J. Solomon" <mike.sol@worldnet.att.net>)


>Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, >where there are no serious conflicts between characters. That sounds about as interesting as a DS9 Ferengi episode.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Ann Johnson <Johnson.Ann@att.net>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:_rAI4.9452$Kc.193970@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 > > If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in > > actors who actually have talent. > > > > RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> Neither would Will (Pestley) Wheaton.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Michele <belanna@uswest.net>)


Ann Johnson wrote: > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com> wrote in message > news:_rAI4.9452$Kc.193970@nnrp3.clara.net... > > "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 > > > If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in > > > actors who actually have talent. > > > > > > > RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> > > Neither would Will (Pestley) Wheaton. I dont see RDM having an ego, from all I have read he doesn't have one. I think he is very talented. I don't think he would have gotten this far if he wasn't. Now will wheaton isnt bad either.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:17:00 GMT, "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote: > >"Michele" <belanna@uswest.net> wrote in message >news:38F276B6.F8709283@uswest.net... > > >> Sulu is really intent on the show based on him. Is it me or >> does he have a ego like shatner does. > > >********* >If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in >actors who actually have talent. > You have good taste! :-) Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:34:56 GMT, Mark Nguyen <mnguyen@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably appreciate. > >... A lot of which they managed to get rid of. By the end of >"Caretaker", everyone was "one crew - a Starfleet crew". The Maquis >element has been seriously underused since then, and is all but absent >now. > >Actually, issue a partial retraction on that. The Maquis were around for >barely a year before Voyager dissappeared, and now they've been stuck on >that ship for six. That said, I doubt anyone can rely on Maquis grudges >and storylines anymore. > >> I haven't read the article, but I wouldn't accuse Takei of a Shatner-ego. >> There is a movement of fans that is trying to convince Paramount to make a >> show around Sulu. I'm sure Takei is just adding his own sales pitch, for >> the sake of a steady paycheck. (Outside Trek, he hasn't worked that much >> the last 30 years). > >As an actor, maybe. Takei was very busy during the 70s and 80s in >politics and city administration. > >Takei is one of those people you just walk by and say "What a guy". Read >his autobiography; it's by far the most enjoyable of the lot. > wholeheartedly agreed! Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Michele wrote: > 5er wrote: > > > > In article <sf62gjarcqv148@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" says... > > > > > >Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans > (especially > > >those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and > Voyager. DS9 was > > >a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But > Voyager > > >mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. > > > > DS9 was definitely a different kind of Trek. For one, I don't think > I ever > > heard the term "Prime Directive" mentioned during its later years, > even though > > you could see technical violations all over the place. Also, there > was almost > > no space exploration by the time Worf joined the show. But who > cares? I loved > > it! > > I don't remember the prime directive being mentioned either. Actually, I found they followed the Prime Directive more faithfully than Voyager, although I can see confusion as to what is covered by the Prime Directive. I always assumed the PD applies prior to Federation relations with a planet. DS9 had very few such First Contact situation. You can't "not interfere" with someone whom you're at war with. OTOH, every contact for Voyager is a first contact, which is why I always assumed that the PD applied (or should apply) strictly. -Havoc

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (arlie88@aol.comNoSpam)


>> OK how is ds9 and voyager not like what roddenberry wanted? << I think both are rather darker than the Great Bird's vision. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I like a dark edge. In my TV shows, anyway. TOS (and Gene) had that sixties idealism that was just hugely at odds with the cynical 1980s and 1990s. I saw a fan-made music video once, using TOS clips set to Don McLean's "American Pie" (a song about the loss of innocence). I loved it. It fit so well. It really was an innocent time, and TOS reflected that. -- Arlie

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:03:08 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com> wrote: >"Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 >> If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in >> actors who actually have talent. >> > >RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> LOL, no! Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (5er <5er_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <sf62gjarcqv148@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" says... > >Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans (especially >those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and Voyager. DS9 was >a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But Voyager >mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. DS9 was definitely a different kind of Trek. For one, I don't think I ever heard the term "Prime Directive" mentioned during its later years, even though you could see technical violations all over the place. Also, there was almost no space exploration by the time Worf joined the show. But who cares? I loved it!

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Michele <belanna@uswest.net>)


5er wrote: > > In article <sf62gjarcqv148@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" says... > > > >Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans (especially > >those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and Voyager. DS9 was > >a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But Voyager > >mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. > > DS9 was definitely a different kind of Trek. For one, I don't think I ever > heard the term "Prime Directive" mentioned during its later years, even though > you could see technical violations all over the place. Also, there was almost > no space exploration by the time Worf joined the show. But who cares? I loved > it! I don't remember the prime directive being mentioned either. Well the station was bajorian so they didn't really follow the directive. DS9 was ok, but the last few years were I don't know but not great. At the time I was really getting into voyager. So I think partly ds9 was getting boring. I couldn't really get into the characters of ds9 as i did with voyager and tng. That is just my opinion.

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:22:38 GMT, "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote: > >"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com> wrote in message >news:_rAI4.9452$Kc.193970@nnrp3.clara.net... >> "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 >> > If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in >> > actors who actually have talent. >> > >> >> RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> > > >Neither would Will (Pestley) Wheaton. > LOL! :-) Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Michele wrote in message <38F281BA.26A33A4D@uswest.net>... > > >havoc wrote: >> DS9 was the anti-Roddenberry, Voyager strays a bit less from his vision. >> Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, >> where there are no serious conflicts between characters. He also tended to >> promote a human-kind with no money and no religion. As we know, DS9 had >> humans fighting an ongoing war, had religious plots, multiple conflicts >> between characters, etc, etc. >> >> Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably appreciate. >> > >But then couldn't we say Roddenberry had a unrealistic view >of the future then. Yup... Precisely! Many would say that Trek improved after Roddenberry departed, for that reason. > >It is weird but I still don't get how the tos and tng fans >would not watch Ds9 and voyager. On the outside it looks >like the same premise of the tos series. At least you would >say voyager is, to seek out new life etc. > Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans (especially those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and Voyager. DS9 was a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But Voyager mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. -Havoc

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Michele <belanna@uswest.net>)


havoc wrote: > > Michele wrote in message <38F281BA.26A33A4D@uswest.net>... > > > > > >havoc wrote: > > >> DS9 was the anti-Roddenberry, Voyager strays a bit less from his vision. > >> Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, > >> where there are no serious conflicts between characters. He also tended > to > >> promote a human-kind with no money and no religion. As we know, DS9 had > >> humans fighting an ongoing war, had religious plots, multiple conflicts > >> between characters, etc, etc. > >> > >> Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably > appreciate. > >> > > > >But then couldn't we say Roddenberry had a unrealistic view > >of the future then. > > Yup... Precisely! Many would say that Trek improved after Roddenberry > departed, for that reason. > > > >It is weird but I still don't get how the tos and tng fans > >would not watch Ds9 and voyager. On the outside it looks > >like the same premise of the tos series. At least you would > >say voyager is, to seek out new life etc. > > > > Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans (especially > those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and Voyager. DS9 was > a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But Voyager > mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. > > -Havoc Tng was my first, but the fact that i liked it so much made me want to watch the other two series. Michele

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:49:58 -0700, Michele <belanna@uswest.net> wrote: |OK how is ds9 and voyager not like what roddenberry wanted? |I am totally lost on that aspect. I think they do go along |with what he wanted. Of course we might say the shows we |have are a little more realistic and in my opinion better |then the original. ( please don't flame me ) Masked Man---->My two � worth: turn the sound off and Trek is exactly Roddenberry's vision. Even with the sound on, Roddenberry would accept, if not actively embrace the underlying Trek philosophy: the Prime Suggestion, humanity uber alles, the final frontier, all that. What is different, unmistably different, imo, is the interaction of the characters. It was alluded to once within Trek itself when Janeway observed that Captains of Kirk's day wouldnt cut it in the Starfleet of her day. I believe that knife cuts both ways, but I digress. Most of the character interactions in present day Trek seem lame compared to those of TOS. I dont think that is nostalgia talking. Spock was a laughing Vulcan in denial, McCoy was a doctor, not a -----, and Kirk was Caesar of the stars. See Caesar come, said young Ophelia in Conscience of the King. Few of the Berman era characters feel so passionately about anything..... _ Have Gun Will Travel Wire Paladin San Franciscoo

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com>)


"Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 > If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in > actors who actually have talent. > RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/ E-mail: evilbill25@freeuk.com. ICQ number: 37464244 Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Ann Johnson <Johnson.Ann@att.net>)


"Michele" <belanna@uswest.net> wrote in message news:38F276B6.F8709283@uswest.net... > Sulu is really intent on the show based on him. Is it me or > does he have a ego like shatner does. ********* If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in actors who actually have talent. *********

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - (Mark Nguyen <mnguyen@hotmail.com>)


> Voyager also has more conflict thant Roddenberry would probably appreciate. ... A lot of which they managed to get rid of. By the end of "Caretaker", everyone was "one crew - a Starfleet crew". The Maquis element has been seriously underused since then, and is all but absent now. Actually, issue a partial retraction on that. The Maquis were around for barely a year before Voyager dissappeared, and now they've been stuck on that ship for six. That said, I doubt anyone can rely on Maquis grudges and storylines anymore. > I haven't read the article, but I wouldn't accuse Takei of a Shatner-ego. > There is a movement of fans that is trying to convince Paramount to make a > show around Sulu. I'm sure Takei is just adding his own sales pitch, for > the sake of a steady paycheck. (Outside Trek, he hasn't worked that much > the last 30 years). As an actor, maybe. Takei was very busy during the 70s and 80s in politics and city administration. Takei is one of those people you just walk by and say "What a guy". Read his autobiography; it's by far the most enjoyable of the lot. Mark

2000-04-11 00:00:00 - Re: a question - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > DS9 was the anti-Roddenberry, Voyager strays a bit less from his vision. > Essentially, Roddenberry wanted to paint a perfect picture of human-kind, > where there are no serious conflicts between characters. He also tended to > promote a human-kind with no money and no religion. As we know, DS9 had > humans fighting an ongoing war, had religious plots, multiple conflicts > between characters, etc, etc. > You could say, though, that too much has been made of the Roddenberry vision. It was idealistic and not entirely *realistic*. DS9 portrayed a more realistic side, IMHO, showing that even 400 years on, humans are still humans, still have the same faults and vulnerabilities, they're not perfect. (Not that Kirk was a perfect specimen either, by any means <g>) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/ E-mail: evilbill25@freeuk.com. ICQ number: 37464244 Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-04-12 00:00:00 - Re: a question - ("David B." <bothecat@hotmail.com>)


5er wrote: > > In article <sf62gjarcqv148@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" says... > > > >Many TOS fans refused to acknowledge TNG. Then many TNG fans (especially > >those who "grew up" on TNG) refused to acknolwedge DS9 and Voyager. DS9 was > >a bit different than other Trek (Perhaps why I preferred it). But Voyager > >mostly fits right into the TOS/TNG mold. > > DS9 was definitely a different kind of Trek. For one, I don't think I ever > heard the term "Prime Directive" mentioned during its later years, even though > you could see technical violations all over the place. I think that the last mention of the PD on DS9 was during the Circle trilogy at the beginning of season 2. It certainly wasn't mentioned during the Dominion War.

2000-04-12 00:00:00 - Re: a question - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com>)


"Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:ijII4.206$PV.6130@bgtnsc06- > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbill25REMOVE-THIS@freeuk.com> wrote in message > > "Ann Johnson" <Johnson.Ann@att.net> wrote in message news:g2vI4.13946 > > > If George Takei has an ego like Shatner, that fine. I accept an ego in > > > actors who actually have talent. > > > > RDM wouldn't count, then <eg> > > Neither would Will (Pestley) Wheaton. > Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, on the other hand... ;-) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/ E-mail: evilbill25@freeuk.com. ICQ number: 37464244 Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950