Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Daryle Lockhart]

DS9's my favorite,  but let's remember...DS9  was a reaction to the  
times. It's not like Gene had this  vision of DS9 al those years. the  
world was getting  cynical  and there was an undercurrent  of  
mistrust  for authority in teh early  90s. DS9 appealed to  people  
who liked Star Trek but were having trouble relating.


On May 16, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:





That's my point. Abrams and all the non-Trek fans and box-office- 
stars-in-their-eyes Trek fans seem to think that there were no  
stories left to tell. DS9-with its brilliant creation of the  
Dominion, and its fleshing out of both the Bajorans and the  
Cardassians--showed that's just not true.


- Original Message -
From: wlro...@aol.com
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:44:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With  
William Shatner Or Khan





 I just wanted to chime in on the comment on TNG and where would  
they go after the Borg. Well to be honest they could have done a  
stories with the Founders. I mean if they did not want to pull the  
cast of DS9 over they could have used Odo. I mean it would not have  
been the first cross over we have seen in the Star Trek universe.  
We never knew anything about what the Enterprise crew was doing  
during this war that seem to have DS9 at the fore front.

--Lavender

From: Daryle Lockhart
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With  
William Shatner Or Khan


I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But  
the old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell  
off after "First Contact", they had to make up species because --   
where do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's  
another  discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is  
because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD  
Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and  
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW  
UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years  
later. But that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the  
movie series gone on the way the first  movie dictated, it would  
have died after 3.


That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think  
there is ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with  
everyone.


Ready?

Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way  
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story,  
update a few things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this  
franchise's history,  by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour  
"City On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I  
dare say that  it could be the first science fiction film to  be  
nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.


On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:




I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like  
"The old continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just  
lazy film making. The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies,  
and --including "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling  
me he couldn't find something in *all that* to fuel new, action- 
driven stories? He couldn't have brought together this crew in the  
movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not just  
have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his  
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as  
if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been  
done.


My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young  
cast members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than  
Kirk was in the original timeline when he became captain, but you  
can work around that. We don't know the backstories of how Bones,  
Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the Enterprise, so you can write  
that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up in season one of  
the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring him in  
for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's  
original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?


Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit  
for "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found  
on Earth (something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some  
of that made some of us howl, as the series got better toward its  
end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we liked it precisely because it  
was exploring the themes from the OS that had always been there.  
So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored the  
original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they  
did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. 

RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Tracey de Morsella]

Don’t be undone.  Redo .  We respect your opinion. I respect your opinion.  And 
The killing of Vulcan, Kirk’s dad, Spock’s mom….. I did not like it.   But 
while we are at it, I did not like the destroying one third of the population 
of earth on Enterprise either.  However, that alone did not determine whether I 
thought the show was good. 

 

 I also think something else is going on with Abrams regarding Trek, other than 
lazy storytelling.  I think   -ego and politics is involved.  There were 
obviously people on the writing staff who worked hard to stay true to the 
original show.Then we have Abrams, saying stuff and doing things to 
intentionally antagonize the hardcore fans.  I think he has issues with working 
in Roddenberry’s shadow.  I also think the hardcore fans were on the attack 
from the beginning.  After Years of Berman, the fall of Lost, MI3 and That NY 
monster flick, they gave him a hard way to go.  Can’t say I blame them, but it 
got to the point where fans were calling for a boycott because they did not 
like his set design decisions.  What I think really might have set this course 
in motion, is Shatner’s decision to use fans to wage a public campaign to be 
cast in the movie.Perhaps Abrams  made certain moves to cut the cord--- to 
make it so hard core fans and Shatner would no longer be driving the direction 
of the production or buzz about the productions for the next decade.  

 

I’m not saying I agree with the approach, but I can empathize.  I remember over 
the past two years times were Shatner was the story or angry fans were the 
story.  I imagine that it can’t be fun facing your backers with that type of 
buzz in the trades.I do not remember Nolan catching that much hell with 
Batman.  I also do not remember any actor waging a public campaign for major 
casting decisions with Batman.

 

Now, he has control over a franchise in which he has won over a majority of 
fans and he brought in a hug number of new ones.  Also, now, he does not have 
to worry about the hardcore fans dogging his every move as much.  They have 
decided to boycott.  By doing what he did, he is off the hook, and free of a 
decade of hassle.  I’m kind of were Sincere is too. I liked it a lot, but 
lament the changes.  However, I can relate to the possible reasons behind the 
decisions made… If my theory is right.   

 

 I agree, that they did not have to destroy Vulcan to show Spock’s struggle.  
Again, I did not think that was the purpose.   Other political forces were 
behind that decision.  Regarding Spock and his love interest and the public 
“groping”…I’m biased..  I’ve had a thing for Spock since I was a kid, so him 
getting the girl – The Hot Black chick was great to me.I thought they had 
great chemistry.  Characters have been having intimate goodbyes in the 
transporter room for decades.  In this case, there were only two other people 
in the room.  You have an almost photographic memory with Trek.  If you think 
back to all the transporter romantic goodbye scenes, most of them have one or 
two other people in the room.  Is that really public groping?  Or is your 
discomfort really about a character we have know for all our lives being 
dramatically changed?  That I understand.  Why I am onboard with this change is 
that in the sixties, if you were biracial, you picked one race or the other .   
I think Spock’s choice to go all Vulcan  then reflected that.  So did Worf.  
Now, many biracial people try to find a way to merge the two halves .I 
think the new Spock reflects that change in thinking.  I would say Torres was 
more like that as well.  As someone with many biracial people in  my family, I 
can relate to that change and like the complexity it could bring to the 
character in future movies.  That being said, I can see why it could be 
difficult for long time fans to stomach.  It is a major, major change to a 
beloved character and departure from his defining trait.

 

I agree that Abrams could have written great stories without destroying Vulcan. 
 I would have preferred that.  But I think the goal was to cut the cord with 
something dramatic. ….  I think they decided to do something that would sever 
the ties with the hardcores, and still keep people like you and me, who would 
bulk but stay on board, all the while widening the audience.Think about it. 
 To people like Martin, the new Star Trek not  exist.  Fans like him are no 
longer going to be on his case. Think of what Berman had to deal with and 
rightly so.  Nonetheless, Abrams will no longer have that issue.  Hardcores 
want nothing to do with it.  Now he is willing to cast Shatner, because he 
showed Shatner that he could not be bullied with the hardcore fans into casting 
him.  If this franchise is like Spderman or Batman, they have at least 2 more 
sequels left in them, and from his perspective,  that hassle is not longer an 
issue

 

 

From: scifino...@yahos ogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroup

[scifinoir2] Kirk's Dad is "Thor"

[Keith Johnson]

This could be interesting. I saw Kenneth Branaugh on Charlie Rose last week, 
and he was very excited about directing the Thor movie. 

*** 


Kirk's Dad is Thor 

Hemsworth cast as Marvel's god of thunder. 

by Jim Vejvoda 

May 16, 2009 - Aussie actor Chris Hemsworth , currently seen as James T. Kirk's 
dad George in the new Star Trek movie, has reportedly won the title role in 
Marvel's Thor . 

Deadline Hollywood Daily reported today that Hemsworth had initially "read for 
the part of Thor but wasn't given a test because a casting director had nixed 
him early on. I'm told Chris' younger brother Liam (who's also a ROAR client) 
then tested for the role of Thor, but Marvel's Kevin Feige passed. Then, after 
a conversation with [Hemsworth's manager William] Ward ('You've got to 
reconsider Chris, he's your guy'), Feige decided to let Chris read again. And 
once Marvel put him on tape, it was 'Oh my god'. [ Thor director Kenneth] 
Branagh came to town last week and saw the Chris test and made the final 
casting decision today." 

According to the IMDB , Hemsworth is 25 years-old and stands 6'3". He'll next 
be seen in the Joss Whedon-scripted horror flick Cabin in the Woods . 

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

And that's my point. We'll love the movies, sing their praises, and in time 
they may even spawn a series. But will it do as well? Not sure. 

- Original Message - 
From: "Daryle Lockhart"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:36:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








There are Star Trek fans, and there are Seven of Nine fans. Sometimes they are 
the same person. But rarely. $99 million domestically as of this morning? Those 
are new fans. The folks who paid to see Nemesis? Real fans. The fairweather 
Trekkies will have moved on by November, and we'll all be stuck with -- the 
books. And that's where the REAL room to get loose is. 





On May 16, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Keith Johnson wrote: 










I do hope it can spawn a good series. But I do have issues that TNG, DS9 and 
the rest must now be discussed in a sidebar conversation. And I have to ask: do 
you really think that the kind of people who love this new Trek movie are the 
kind who will commit to a series the way fans committed to Trek series? I worry 
that the flash and glitz and FX of the movie won't hold anyone's attention on 
the tube. Great FX and action are so common nowadays, one needs more to build a 
following. aNd you know what? I hear very few people--fans or non-fans--say of 
the movie "It was deep and meaningful. It had great drama, great acting, and 
great exploration of the human condition" I hear them say it's fun and 
exciting. To me that's the same interest that might draw them in to the 
premiere of a new series, but unless every show is just chock-full of fun and 
action, they'll lose interest. 
Trek has been the forty-year phenomenon it has because of the human interest, 
complex stories, and tough questions it asks. It created a small but devoted 
following that wasn't focused on FX and the like. I just wonder if a series 
that's not full of the "Abrams' Effect" will bore non-fans as too "slow" and 
"talky", but not engage traditional Trek fans because it's different. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Daryle Lockhart"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:11:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 











I think people would be equally as excited if it was a premiere episode of a 
series. Point is, this is the best Star Trek PERIOD in a long time. Star Trek 
has failed on TV twice. there are more bad episode of Trek than there are bad 
movies. This is just a really good movie, and now presents an opportunity for 
writers to do more with these characters. That's it. 


I think Star Trek's success opens the door for a really god TV series that is 
NOT Star Trek, actually. Hope to see that. 


On May 16, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Keith Johnson wrote: 










I think everyone is so enamored of a Trek *movie* doing well, they're 
forgetting it's the Trek *series* that made the franchise. The movies are fun, 
two hours of action and FX, but it's the plotting, writing, and drama of the 
series--enjoyed slowly over years--that made Trek what it is. So while I enjoy 
the movie as two hours of fun, I also lament an unnecessary destruction of 
continuity by people who don't get the depth of Trek, who've reduced it to 
explosions, shiny ships, horny Vulcans, and dead Vulcans. 
I say again: there is way too much room to manuever in the Trek universe 
without destroying Vulcan and rewriting history. I think that in time y'all 
will realize that Abrams simply doesn't like Trek, and swept out the old 
because he couldn't relate. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Omari Confer"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:00:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








(applause) Thats what im talkin about... 


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart < dar...@darylelockhart.com > 
wrote: 










I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with 

[scifinoir2] Spacewalkers pull off toughest Hubble repairs yet

[Keith Johnson]

Wow, this is amazing. I was really nervous about this repair before it was 
undertaken. But two things it makes me wish. One, that Hubble weren't the only 
device of its type in orbit. It's pretty old now, and I really wish there'd 
been the initiative to put another, newer one in orbit recently. And two, given 
the nature of the spacewalk's difficulty and danger, makes me wish more than 
ever that we had a Lunar colony. How cool it would be to have Moon-based 
telescopes situated on the dark side of Luna. It'd make servicing a lot easier, 
though of course they're range of vision might be a bit limited. 


*** 
[Yahoo News] 

Spacewalkers pull off toughest Hubble repairs yet 


By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer Marcia Dunn, Ap Aerospace Writer – 35 mins 
ago 


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Spacewalking astronauts gave the Hubble Space Telescope 
a more commanding view of the cosmos by installing a new high-tech instrument 
Saturday, then pulled off their toughest job yet: fixing a broken camera. 

It was the third spacewalk in as many days for the shuttle Atlantis crew and 
the most intricate ever performed because of the unprecedented camera repairs. 
Astronauts had never before tried to take apart a science instrument at the 
19-year-old observatory. 

Hubble's chief mechanic, John Grunsfeld, deftly opened up the burned-out camera 
and plucked out all four electronic cards that needed to be replaced. 

"Somehow I don't think brain surgeons go 'woo-hoo' when they pull something 
out," one of the astronauts observed from inside Atlantis. 

To everyone's surprise, the new cards and power supply pack went in just as 
smoothly. In fact, the astronauts found themselves running ahead of schedule 
for a change, their spacewalk lasting the allotted 6 1/2 hours. The first two 
spacewalks ended up running long because of unexpected difficulties encountered 
with Hubble, last visited seven years ago. 

The astronauts cheered when Mission Control radioed up the news that the 
repaired camera had passed the first round of testing. 

"That's unbelievable," Grunsfeld said. 

A second round of testing was expected to last well into the night. Early 
Saturday evening, Mission Control told astronauts that a new spectrograph that 
spacewalkers also installed passed both its tests. Atlantis crew responded with 
what has become customary whooping it up. 

Even with two spacewalks remaining, including the repair of a major instrument 
Sunday, NASA managers were handing out accolades and talking about how improved 
the telescope already is. 

"At this point in time, Hubble has reached a new high in terms of its 
capability," Hubble program manager Preston Burch said at a news conference 
Saturday afternoon. "We're enjoying the moment and savoring it." 

Atlantis' crew broke out in grins. 

In a video sent to Earth taken before the spacewalk, Mike Massimino, who 
spacewalked Friday and will do so again Sunday, compared dealing with Hubble to 
a heavyweight fight. But he also was looking like the winner in such a bout. 

"We don't warranty any of the work," Massimino joked for the camera in a heavy 
New York accent. "Labor's not guaranteed." 

The high-stakes job unfolded 350 miles above Earth. Orbiting so high put 
Atlantis and its astronauts at an increased risk of being hit by space junk . 
NASA had another shuttle on launch standby in case a rescue was needed. 

Earlier, Grunsfeld and his spacewalking partner, Andrew Feustel, accomplished 
their first task, hooking up the $88 million Cosmic Origins Spectrograph . 

They made room for the new supersensitive spectrograph — designed to detect 
faint light from faraway quasars — by removing the corrective lenses that 
restored Hubble's vision in 1993. 

"This is really pretty historic," Grunsfeld said as he and Feustel hoisted out 
the phone booth-size box containing Hubble's old contacts. 

Hubble was launched in 1990 with a flawed mirror that left it nearsighted. But 
the newer science instruments have corrective lenses built in, making the 1993 
contacts unnecessary. The latest addition, the cosmic spectrograph, is expected 
to provide greater insight into how planets, stars and galaxies formed. 

The switch — taking out the 7-foot-long box containing the corrective lenses 
and putting in the spectrograph — proved straightforward. It's exactly the kind 
of replacement work astronauts performed on four previous repair missions. 

Fixing the 7-year-old camera was far more complicated. The instrument — called 
the Advanced Camera for Surveys — suffered an electrical short and stopped 
working two years ago. Ground controllers had been able to eke out a minimal 
amount of science but wanted it back in full operation. 

Before it broke, the surveys camera provided astronomers with the deepest view 
of the universe in visible light, going back in time 13 billion years. 

NASA considered this repair job — and one planned Sunday on another 

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Daryle Lockhart]

There are Star Trek fans,  and there are Seven of Nine fans.   
Sometimes they  are the same person.  But rarely.  $99 million  
domestically as of this morning?  Those are new fans.  The folks who  
paid to see Nemesis?  Real fans.  The  fairweather Trekkies will   
have moved on by November, and we'll  all  be stuck  with   --  the  
books.  And that's where the  REAL room to get  loose is.



On May 16, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:





I do hope it can spawn a good series. But I do have issues that  
TNG, DS9 and the rest must now be discussed in a sidebar  
conversation.  And I have to ask: do you really think that the kind  
of people who love this new Trek movie are the kind who will commit  
to a series the way fans committed to Trek series?  I worry that  
the flash and glitz and FX of the movie won't hold anyone's  
attention on the tube. Great FX and action are so common nowadays,  
one needs more to build a following. aNd you know what? I hear very  
few people--fans or non-fans--say of the movie "It was deep and  
meaningful. It had great drama, great acting, and great exploration  
of the human condition" I hear them say it's fun and exciting. To  
me that's the same interest that might draw them in to the premiere  
of a new series, but unless every show is just chock-full of fun  
and action, they'll lose interest.
Trek has been the forty-year phenomenon it has because of the human  
interest, complex stories, and tough questions it asks. It created  
a small but devoted following that wasn't focused on FX and the  
like. I just wonder if a series that's not full of the "Abrams'  
Effect" will bore non-fans as too "slow" and "talky", but not  
engage traditional Trek fans because it's different.



- Original Message -
From: "Daryle Lockhart" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:11:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With  
William Shatner Or Khan






I think people would be equally as excited if it was a premiere  
episode of  a series.  Point is,  this is the best  Star Trek  
PERIOD in a long time.  Star Trek has failed on TV twice. there   
are more bad episode of Trek than there are  bad movies.  This is  
just a really good movie,  and now presents an opportunity for  
writers to  do more with these characters. That's it.


I  think Star Trek's  success opens the  door for a really god TV  
series that  is NOT Star Trek, actually.  Hope to see that.


On May 16, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:




I think everyone is so enamored of a Trek *movie* doing well,  
they're forgetting it's the Trek *series* that made the franchise.   
The movies are fun, two hours of action and FX, but it's the  
plotting, writing, and drama of the series--enjoyed slowly over  
years--that made Trek what it is. So while I enjoy the movie as two  
hours of fun, I also lament an unnecessary destruction of  
continuity by people who don't get the depth of Trek, who've  
reduced it to explosions, shiny ships, horny Vulcans, and dead  
Vulcans.
I say again: there is way too much room to manuever in the Trek  
universe without destroying Vulcan and rewriting history. I think  
that in time y'all will realize that Abrams simply doesn't like  
Trek, and swept out the old because he couldn't relate.



- Original Message -
From: "Omari Confer" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:00:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With  
William  Shatner Or Khan




(applause) Thats what im talkin about...


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart  
wrote:



I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But  
the old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell  
off after "First Contact", they had to make up species because --   
where do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's  
another  discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is  
because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD  
Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and  
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW  
UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years  
later. But that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the  
movie series gone on the way the first  movie dictated, it would  
have died after 3.



That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think  
there is ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with  
everyone.


Ready?

Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way  
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story,  
update a few things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this  
franchise's history,  by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour  
"City On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I  
dare s

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

I do hope it can spawn a good series. But I do have issues that TNG, DS9 and 
the rest must now be discussed in a sidebar conversation. And I have to ask: do 
you really think that the kind of people who love this new Trek movie are the 
kind who will commit to a series the way fans committed to Trek series? I worry 
that the flash and glitz and FX of the movie won't hold anyone's attention on 
the tube. Great FX and action are so common nowadays, one needs more to build a 
following. aNd you know what? I hear very few people--fans or non-fans--say of 
the movie "It was deep and meaningful. It had great drama, great acting, and 
great exploration of the human condition" I hear them say it's fun and 
exciting. To me that's the same interest that might draw them in to the 
premiere of a new series, but unless every show is just chock-full of fun and 
action, they'll lose interest. 
Trek has been the forty-year phenomenon it has because of the human interest, 
complex stories, and tough questions it asks. It created a small but devoted 
following that wasn't focused on FX and the like. I just wonder if a series 
that's not full of the "Abrams' Effect" will bore non-fans as too "slow" and 
"talky", but not engage traditional Trek fans because it's different. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Daryle Lockhart"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:11:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 











I think people would be equally as excited if it was a premiere episode of a 
series. Point is, this is the best Star Trek PERIOD in a long time. Star Trek 
has failed on TV twice. there are more bad episode of Trek than there are bad 
movies. This is just a really good movie, and now presents an opportunity for 
writers to do more with these characters. That's it. 


I think Star Trek's success opens the door for a really god TV series that is 
NOT Star Trek, actually. Hope to see that. 


On May 16, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Keith Johnson wrote: 










I think everyone is so enamored of a Trek *movie* doing well, they're 
forgetting it's the Trek *series* that made the franchise. The movies are fun, 
two hours of action and FX, but it's the plotting, writing, and drama of the 
series--enjoyed slowly over years--that made Trek what it is. So while I enjoy 
the movie as two hours of fun, I also lament an unnecessary destruction of 
continuity by people who don't get the depth of Trek, who've reduced it to 
explosions, shiny ships, horny Vulcans, and dead Vulcans. 
I say again: there is way too much room to manuever in the Trek universe 
without destroying Vulcan and rewriting history. I think that in time y'all 
will realize that Abrams simply doesn't like Trek, and swept out the old 
because he couldn't relate. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Omari Confer"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:00:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








(applause) Thats what im talkin about... 


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart < dar...@darylelockhart.com > 
wrote: 










I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with everyone. 


Ready? 


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this franchise's history, by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that it could be the first science fiction 
film to be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE. 


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this. 







On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: 











I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--abou

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

Aaaaggg! 

No there's no reason for me to say anything else. I am undone! (Sniff!) :) 

I hear what you are saying and agree a lot. But like Sincere--the only other 
person here who's made this point--I simply don't see why "reinvigorating" 
meant "rewriting history". I still feel you can explore Spock's struggle 
without destroying Vulcan, making him someone who gropes his girl in public, or 
putting Kirk on the ship as captain after only three years in Academy and one 
rushed mission. 

And my other real problem is what do we do with the other series--TNG, DS9, 
Voyager--and movies. I find it unnecessary to have two parallet realities when 
Abrams could simply have told a boatload of new stories in the first few years 
of the original continuity. 

- Original Message - 
From: "tdemorsella"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were 
made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. 
These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I 
remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make 
Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues 
with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting 
decisions proved to good ones. 

I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and 
sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of 
the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his 
bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear 
to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of 
person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think 
he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going 
public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky 
and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. 

I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life 
into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid 
of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are 
important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years 
of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being 
the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, 
I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see 
potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there 
was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three 
years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both 
human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. 

Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new 
trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans 
that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at 
least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a 
really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will 
likely see even more scifi movie productions. 

With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production 
casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. 

The man gave us a gift. 

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Bosco Bosco  wrote: 
> 
> Keith 
> 
> One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up 
> front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek 
> Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not 
> lazy. That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not 
> lazy. It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of 
> research, thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices 
> you would not have does not make him a lazy story teller. 
> 
> I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities 
> and amazing worlds 
> of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast away for 
> better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES WELL!!! 
> 
> I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new 
> Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that 
> it has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. 
> Indicative, I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe 
> life into the franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some 
> of the older generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of 
> what was, simply

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Daryle Lockhart]

I think people would be equally as excited if it was a premiere  
episode of  a series.  Point is,  this is the best  Star Trek PERIOD  
in a long time.  Star Trek has failed on TV twice. there  are more  
bad episode of Trek than there are  bad movies.  This is just a  
really good movie,  and now presents an opportunity for writers to   
do more with these characters. That's it.


I  think Star Trek's  success opens the  door for a really god TV  
series that  is NOT Star Trek, actually.  Hope to see that.


On May 16, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:





I think everyone is so enamored of a Trek *movie* doing well,  
they're forgetting it's the Trek *series* that made the franchise.   
The movies are fun, two hours of action and FX, but it's the  
plotting, writing, and drama of the series--enjoyed slowly over  
years--that made Trek what it is. So while I enjoy the movie as two  
hours of fun, I also lament an unnecessary destruction of  
continuity by people who don't get the depth of Trek, who've  
reduced it to explosions, shiny ships, horny Vulcans, and dead  
Vulcans.
I say again: there is way too much room to manuever in the Trek  
universe without destroying Vulcan and rewriting history. I think  
that in time y'all will realize that Abrams simply doesn't like  
Trek, and swept out the old because he couldn't relate.



- Original Message -
From: "Omari Confer" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:00:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With  
William  Shatner Or Khan




(applause) Thats what im talkin about...


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart  
wrote:



I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But  
the old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell  
off after "First Contact", they had to make up species because --   
where do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's  
another  discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is  
because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD  
Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and  
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW  
UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years  
later. But that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the  
movie series gone on the way the first  movie dictated, it would  
have died after 3.



That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think  
there is ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with  
everyone.


Ready?

Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way  
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story,  
update a few things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this  
franchise's history,  by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour  
"City On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I  
dare say that  it could be the first science fiction film to  be  
nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.


On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:




I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like  
"The old continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just  
lazy film making. The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies,  
and --including "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling  
me he couldn't find something in *all that* to fuel new, action- 
driven stories? He couldn't have brought together this crew in the  
movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not just  
have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his  
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as  
if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been  
done.


My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young  
cast members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than  
Kirk was in the original timeline when he became captain, but you  
can work around that. We don't know the backstories of how Bones,  
Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the Enterprise, so you can write  
that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up in season one of  
the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring him in  
for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's  
original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?


Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit  
for "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found  
on Earth (something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some  
of that made some of us howl, as the series got better toward its  
end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we liked it precisely because it  
was exploring the themes from the OS that had always been there.  
So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored the  
original uni

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

That's my point. Abrams and all the non-Trek fans and 
box-office-stars-in-their-eyes Trek fans seem to think that there were no 
stories left to tell. DS9-with its brilliant creation of the Dominion, and its 
fleshing out of both the Bajorans and the Cardassians--showed that's just not 
true. 

- Original Message - 
From: wlro...@aol.com 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:44:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 









I just wanted to chime in on the comment on TNG and where would they go after 
the Borg. Well to be honest they could have done a stories with the Founders. I 
mean if they did not want to pull the cast of DS9 over they could have used 
Odo. I mean it would not have been the first cross over we have seen in the 
Star Trek universe. We never knew anything about what the Enterprise crew was 
doing during this war that seem to have DS9 at the fore front. 
--Lavender 




From: Daryle Lockhart 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40 PM 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 

I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with everyone. 


Ready? 


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this franchise's history, by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that it could be the first science fiction 
film to be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE. 


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this. 






On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: 










I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and racism-- 
All good stories, all

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

The other thing I keep noticing is that people keep talking about the best Trek 
"movie" either. Would this take, however, generate a longrunning series? The 
magic of Trek has never been the movies. They've always been just fun things to 
make money at the box office. It was the accumulated magic and intelligence of 
the series that made Trek. So in a way this isn't the right argument. I'm sure 
the movies will be successful, and I will be there for all of them. I liked 
this film. A lot. But do we think that in a few years there'll be anew Trek 
series on TV, that it will do really well, that it'll last for years and that 
it will spawn future generations of fans the way the other series did? 

That's the question, and I'm not seeig anything here to answer that in the 
affirmative. 




- Original Message - 
From: "Bosco Bosco"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:33:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








Keith 

One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up 
front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek 
Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not lazy. 
That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not lazy. 
It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of research, 
thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices you would not 
have does not make him a lazy story teller. 

I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities and 
amazing worlds of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast 
away for better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES 
WELL!!! 

I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new 
Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that it 
has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. Indicative, 
I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe life into the 
franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some of the older 
generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of what was, simply 
makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some "Trekditionalists" get 
a bunch of funds together to make another in long line of generally subpar 
science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and we're just visiting. Time to 
find a way to move on. 

Bosco 
--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson  wrote: 



From: Keith Johnson  
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM 






I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" 
--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all 
that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought together 
this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not 
just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his crew in 
the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's ever 
said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

Gotta disagree. It's not that it isn't what I want, it's that I don't see the 
need to rewrite history. Y'all keep saying Trek was dead. Maybe so, but how 
does Vulcan's demise reinvigorate it? You can't explore young Spock with his 
planet still intact? You can't have a Jim Kirk finding himself without killing 
his dad too soon? You can't tell interesting stories about Spock's struggle 
with his dual nature without making him so overtly emotional? 

Sorry, it is lazy storytelling. I've listened to at least half a dozen 
interviews with Abrams, and in everyone he says "I didn't get Trek"..."It was 
too cheesy and cheap-looking to hold my attention"..."I never understood why I 
should care about the characters". So, he couldn't figure out how hundreds of 
hours of TV shows can engage, him, so he decide to simply erase it. This ain't 
BSG: Trek was already rich and interesting. Fans keep saying "Trek is dead and 
tired", but Abrams ain't saying that. He ain't saying "I wanted to go back to 
the old Trek", he says "I never liked Trek". 

I'm not knocking making it fun and exciting, but I am and will continue to say 
the changes to continuity were unnecessary. You don't have to sweep away 
everything already in place to tell new stories. I fear the time will come when 
people will realize this isn't so much an homage and respect of Trek, but a 
type of disrespect of it, of saying "It had potential, but I can do better". 

- Original Message - 
From: "Bosco Bosco"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:33:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








Keith 

One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up 
front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek 
Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not lazy. 
That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not lazy. 
It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of research, 
thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices you would not 
have does not make him a lazy story teller. 

I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities and 
amazing worlds of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast 
away for better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES 
WELL!!! 

I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new 
Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that it 
has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. Indicative, 
I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe life into the 
franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some of the older 
generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of what was, simply 
makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some "Trekditionalists" get 
a bunch of funds together to make another in long line of generally subpar 
science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and we're just visiting. Time to 
find a way to move on. 

Bosco 
--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson  wrote: 



From: Keith Johnson  
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM 






I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" 
--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all 
that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought together 
this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not 
just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his crew in 
the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's ever 
said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

I think everyone is so enamored of a Trek *movie* doing well, they're 
forgetting it's the Trek *series* that made the franchise. The movies are fun, 
two hours of action and FX, but it's the plotting, writing, and drama of the 
series--enjoyed slowly over years--that made Trek what it is. So while I enjoy 
the movie as two hours of fun, I also lament an unnecessary destruction of 
continuity by people who don't get the depth of Trek, who've reduced it to 
explosions, shiny ships, horny Vulcans, and dead Vulcans. 
I say again: there is way too much room to manuever in the Trek universe 
without destroying Vulcan and rewriting history. I think that in time y'all 
will realize that Abrams simply doesn't like Trek, and swept out the old 
because he couldn't relate. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Omari Confer"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:00:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








(applause) Thats what im talkin about... 


On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart < dar...@darylelockhart.com > 
wrote: 










I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with everyone. 


Ready? 


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this franchise's history, by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that it could be the first science fiction 
film to be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE. 


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this. 







On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: 











I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and racism-- 
All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for th

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

I have to disagree. "Wrath of Khan" didn't flaunt any "continuity". It might 
have flaunted a bit of science--that's all. 
Surviving a planet explosion--one that moved their entire planet into another 
orbit--was way crazy. But that was the same Kahn from the series, and they 
didn't rewrite any history to tell it. 

As for Khan not knowing Chekhov, come on: that's nothing. They can easily say 
Chekhov was on the ship but simply not shown. That happens all the time in 
series. Even then, that's not a continuity change, that's just a plot device. 
"Wrath of Khan" involved no major rewrite of Trek history, no alternate 
timelines, no change of the history of the future. 

I still have yet to understand how it's restrictive to operate in a universe 
with so many rich species. If you want new villains, then let's explore the 
Breen. Let's bring the Gorn or the Tholians back and flesh them out. I'm not 
getting how you can't simply create a new threat in the old continuity and 
simply explore something that hadn't been discussed before. After all, TNG and 
especially DS9 brought in the Cardassians--a race known of us had ever heard 
of. Yet in short order they made them a major race, and a good one. They simply 
added to the richness of a universe that is only barely explored, and didn't 
have to destroy Vulcan or rewrite history to do so. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Daryle Lockhart"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with everyone. 


Ready? 


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this franchise's history, by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that it could be the first science fiction 
film to be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE. 


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this. 






On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: 










I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
stor

Re: [scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

[brent wodehouse]

Hiya!

Welcome to the fold. :-)


Brent


"Michelle Lauren"  wrote:

Hi everyone. I just joined the group and wanted to introduce myself. I'm 
a published author, a freelance writer and a regular columnist for 
Romance Writers Report, the national magazine for Romance Writers of 
America. I am an eclectic reader, but I truly enjoy reading (and 
writing) sci-fi-futuristic and urban fantasy romances with multicultural 
characters. 

My first book published with Liquid Silver Books is called STARSTRUCK: 
HUNTER, a multicultural sci-fi romance. There is a link to it in my 
signature line if you want to read a blurb. And, if you're interested, 
I'm being interviewed today about the book and I'm giving away a 
Border's Gift Card. (Here's the interview link: 
http://jennifersrandommusings.wordpress.com) 

I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (I saw some discussion here about his show 
DOLLHOUSE likely getting renewed for Season 2 -- thank goodness! I love 
that show). I hope to chat more with you all soon. 


Michelle Lauren 
STARSTRUCK: HUNTER(Multicultural Sci-Fi Romance)Available from Liquid 
Silver Books 
Buy Link: http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/books/starstruckhunter.htm 

HOW TO TAME A HARPY ~ a Romantic Times magazine American Title V 
finalist 
http://www.michellelaurenbooks.com  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michellelaurenbooks/join 
<../../../../../michellelaurenbooks/join> (Join for 
excerpts,contests, interviews & more!)

[scifinoir2] FW: Obama Talks Star Trek: "Everybody Was Saying I Was Spock"

[Tracey de Morsella]

 

 

From: Cinque3000 [mailto:cinque3...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:28 PM
To: kalpub...@aol.com; tdemorse...@multiculturaladvantage.com;
dar...@darylelockhart.com; afrikanm...@hotmail.com; cbilmarket...@yahoo.com;
bettil...@msn.com; dorothyh...@sbcglobal.net; duva...@hotmail.com;
fis...@bellsouth.net; gwashin...@aol.com; jeffreypbal...@gmail.com;
killa...@gmail.com; keithbjohn...@comcast.net; imke...@gmail.com;
kimbe...@luftworld.com; seriousnup...@yahoo.com; logic1...@aol.com;
truthseeker...@icqmail.com; mmb1...@gmail.com; gord...@indiana.edu;
michael.v.w.gor...@gmail.com; ravena...@yahoo.com; rs...@yahoo.com;
everything...@nyc.rr.com; valeryjea...@yahoo.com; wendellsmit...@gmail.com;
sonofafieldne...@sbcglobal.net; williamsf...@speakeasy.net;
beta...@yahoo.com
Subject: Obama Talks Star Trek: "Everybody Was Saying I Was Spock"

 

A Highly Logical Approach

Jon Meacham

NEWSWEEK

>From the magazine issue dated May 25, 2009

In a 30-minute interview aboard Air Force One en route from Washington to
Phoenix last Wednesday, President Obama talked with NEWSWEEK's Jon Meacham
about Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Dick Cheney—and Star Trek. Edited
excerpts:

Meacham: The theme here is what you've learned. What's the hardest thing
you've had to do? 
The President: Order 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. There is a
sobriety that comes with a decision like that because you have to expect
that some of those young men and women are going to be harmed in the theater
of war. And making sure that you have thought through every angle and have
put together the best possible strategy, but still understanding that in a
situation like Afghanistan the task is extraordinarily difficult and there
are no guarantees, that makes it a very complicated and difficult decision.

Can anything get you ready to be a war president? 
Well, I think that it certainly helps to know the broader strategic issues
involved. I think that's more important than understanding the tactics
involved because there are just some extraordinary commanders on the ground
and a lot of good advisers who I have a lot of confidence in, but the
president has to make a decision: will the application of military force in
this circumstance meet the broader national-security goals of the United
States? And you can't do that without understanding, let's say in
Afghanistan, how that connects to Pakistan and what the nature of the
insurgency there is, and what the history of the Soviet invasion was. So
having some context, I think, is critical.

The other thing that's critical, I think, is having spent a couple of years
on the campaign trail and then a number of years as a senator, meeting with
young men and women who've served, and their families, and the families of
soldiers who never came back, and knowing the price that's being paid by
those who you're sending.

Can you talk about how you reached the surge decision? 
I think the starting point was a recognition that the existing trajectory
was not working, that the Taliban had made advances, that our presence in
Afghanistan was declining in popularity, that the instability along the
border region was destabilizing Pakistan as well. So that was the starting
point of the decision.

We then embarked on a strategic review that involved every aspect of our
government's involvement—Defense, State Department, intelligence operations,
aid operations. Once that strategic review had been completed, then I sat in
a room with the principals and argued about it, and listened to various
perspectives, saw a range of options in terms of how we could move forward;
asked them to go back and rework their numbers and reconsider certain
positions based on the fact that some of the questions I asked could not be
answered. And when I finally felt that every approach—every possible
approach—had been aired, that all the questions had either been answered or
were unanswerable, at that point I had to make a decision and I did.

Was the change-in-command decision that was made this week [Gen. David
McKiernan was relieved as commander of the forces in afghanistan] part of
the ongoing reaction to facts on the ground? 
That is, I think, a reflection of a broader recognition that we have to
apply some fresh eyes to the problem. General McKiernan has done an
outstanding job; he's an outstanding military commander and has served his
country with great distinction. But I have an obligation to make certain
that we are giving ourselves the best possible opportunity to succeed, and
at this moment there was a strong recommendation from the secretary as well
as [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman [Adm. Mike] Mullen that the team that
we're now putting in place is best equipped to succeed.

Are you open to sending more troops in if this particular number can't make
the progress you need to make? 
I think it's premature to talk about additional troops. My strong view is
that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more a

[scifinoir2] Martin---I'm Coming For you!!!

[Tracey de Morsella]

Martin:  

 

Do to babysitting logistics issues, I did not get to see Star trek until
Yesterday.I thought of your refusal to even see it, several times
throughout the movie, and I just shook my head.  It's not that I did not
think that some plot decisions would not enrage you.  I knew that they
would.  I have never seen a reboot, good or bad that has not done so.  It
comes with the territory.   It's that is really a good Trek film and you,
the Trekker/Trekkie who probably needs to see it the most, won't because you
are resistant to change.  Also, except for First Contact, the last few trek
films were bad with all sorts of continuity issues.  Why did you not refuse
to see them?  What is the principle or point you are making?  I've never
known you to be so rigid in  the past.I could see if that guy who did
Fantastic Four was at the helm, but even then, I bet you would see it on
video.  So what is it about this one that has you so close minded?  Are you
going to watch the series when it premiers or are you going to boycott that
as well?

 

OK.  End of lecture

 

Tracey

 

 

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Martin Baxter]

Wouldn't sneeze at that, either...





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 18:44:30 -0400

 From : 

 To : 


 I just wanted to chime in on the comment on TNG and where would they go after 
the Borg. Well to be honest they could have done a stories with the Founders. I 
mean if they did not want to pull the cast of DS9 over they could have used 
Odo. I mean it would not have been the first cross over we have seen in the 
Star Trek universe. We never knew anything about what the Enterprise crew was 
doing during this war that seem to have DS9 at the fore front.
--Lavender


From: Daryle Lockhart 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan




I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because -- where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another discussion) The reason everybody 
loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, 
how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and 
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, 
we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that didn't 
stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on the way the 
first movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is ONE 
direction to go in that would make things right with everyone.


Ready?


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this franchise's history, by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that it could be the first science fiction 
film to be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.




On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:







 I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done.

 My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

 Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did 
a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia an!
 d racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most 
part.

 I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more

[scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[tdemorsella]

Well put Bosco.  I could not have said it better.  There were choices that were 
made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story.  
These were his choices to make and his story to tell.  He told HIS story well.  
I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make 
Starbuck a woman and Tigh White.  While I still think that moore has some 
issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale,  he told his story well and the 
casting decisions proved to good ones.

I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and 
sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of 
the marketing.  I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his 
bizarro relationship with Shatner.  I like Shatner, but he sometimes does 
appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on.  If Abrams is the 
type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him 
they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions.  I think 
Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate.  
It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public.  

I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life 
into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid 
of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are 
important to trekkies.  I was home again.  I saw flaws, but overall after years 
of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being 
the exception) Abrams delivered the goods.  I also saw improvements.  In my 
mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see 
potential for more character development with their characters.  In a way, 
there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire 
three years the series was on.  Showing more of the internal batter with being 
both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion.

Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new 
trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we  have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans 
that are hooked on the Trek mythology.  We are likely to have guaranteed at 
least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a 
really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will 
likely see even more scifi movie productions.  

With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production 
casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series.

The man gave us a gift.  

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Bosco Bosco  wrote:
>
> Keith
> 
> One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up 
> front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek 
> Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not 
> lazy. That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not 
> lazy. It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of 
> research, thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices 
> you would not have does not make him a lazy story teller.
> 
> I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities 
> and amazing worlds
> of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast away for 
> better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES WELL!!!
> 
> I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new 
> Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that 
> it has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. 
> Indicative, I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe 
> life into the franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some 
> of the older generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of
> what was, simply makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some 
> "Trekditionalists" get a bunch of funds together to make another in long line 
> of generally subpar science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and we're 
> just visiting. Time to find a way to move on.
> 
> Bosco
> --- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson  wrote:
> 
> From: Keith Johnson 
> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
> Shatner Or Khan
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: ggs...@..., cinque3...@...
> Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
>   I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The 
> old continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. 
> The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" 
> --about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all 
> that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He coul

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[wlrouge]

 I just wanted to chime in on the comment on TNG and where would they go after 
the Borg. Well to be honest they could have done a stories with the Founders. I 
mean if they did not want to pull the cast of DS9 over they could have used 
Odo. I mean it would not have been the first cross over we have seen in the 
Star Trek universe. We never knew anything about what the Enterprise crew was 
doing during this war that seem to have DS9 at the fore front.
--Lavender


From: Daryle Lockhart 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan




I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old 
continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First 
Contact", they had to make up species because --  where do you go after The 
Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's another  discussion) The reason 
everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity. 
After all, how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet 
explode and people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW 
UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But 
that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone on 
the way the first  movie dictated, it would have died after 3. 


That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there is 
ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with everyone.


Ready?


Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd 
originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few 
things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this franchise's history,  by 
paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever", with the 
right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that  it could be the first science fiction 
film to  be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.




On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:







  I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done.

  My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

  Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some of that made some of 
us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, 
we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and racism--   
All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most part.

  I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it 
just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act 
like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the 
struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

  Abrams just didn't like old Tre

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[George Arterberry]

You make some great points but as stated by others the current timeline. I 
seriously doubt the Eugenic Wars pre-story will be told in the next one.Way too 
much back story. 
 But a part of me would like to see how a sister (Pres. Eckhert) got on Mount 
Rushmore?
Its safe to say it will focus on the "official" launch of the five year mission 
and the first encounter.




--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson  wrote:

From: Keith Johnson 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 11:52 AM











 











  
  I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The 
old continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. 
The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" 
--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all 
that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought together 
this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not 
just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his crew in 
the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's ever 
said there was only one way that could have been done.

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some of that made some of 
us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, 
we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel
 Green's xenophobia and racism--   All good stories, all told in *original* 
continuity for the most part.

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why
we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost 
and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's
undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I 
guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just
didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. There is no 
reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the original 
continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star 
Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over- the-head school of 
filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as opening up 
things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. 

I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to 
destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of 
building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is 
liberating.
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it.


- Original Message -
From: "Tracey de Morsella" 
To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, ggs...@yahoo. com, cinque3...@verizon. net
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner 
Or Khan


















  
  







Star Trek'
Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

'I wouldn't rule
out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas

After last weekend's $76.5
million opening, three phrases keep getting tossed in the direction of "Star
Trek" director J.J. Abrams: sequel, Khan, and William
Shatner. 

On Friday, as the filmmaker hoped to maintain moment

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Martin Baxter]

Do that, my friend. This world needs men like you.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 16:36:22 + (UTC)

 From : Keith Johnson 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


Thanks. Man, doc told me to watch my pressure. Gotta calm down now. 

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:11:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








(standing ovation) 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 
Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 15:52:29 + (UTC) 
>From : Keith Johnson  
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Cc : ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 

I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did 
a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia! an!
 d racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most 
part. 

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act 
like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the 
struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. 
There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the 
original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who 
thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head 
school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as 
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. 

I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to 
destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of 
building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is 
liberating. 
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Tracey de Morsella" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner 
Or Khan 











Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan 

'I wouldn't rule out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas 

After last weekend's $76.5 mil

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Martin Baxter]

(standing ovation)

Talk to me, Doctor!





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 14:40:51 -0400

 From : Daryle Lockhart 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the 
old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off 
after "First Contact", they had to make up species because -- where 
do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's another 
discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it 
stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD Chekov have known 
Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and people survive in a 
shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, we 
wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that 
didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone 
on the way the first movie dictated, it would have died after 3.

That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think 
there is ONE direction to go in that would make things right with 
everyone.

Ready?

Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way 
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, 
update a few things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this 
franchise's history, by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City 
On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I dare say 
that it could be the first science fiction film to be nominated for 
an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.

I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.


On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like 
> "The old continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just 
> lazy film making. The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, 
> and --including "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling 
> me he couldn't find something in *all that* to fuel new, action- 
> driven stories? He couldn't have brought together this crew in the 
> movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not just 
> have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
> crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as 
> if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been 
> done.
>
> My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young 
> cast members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than 
> Kirk was in the original timeline when he became captain, but you 
> can work around that. We don't know the backstories of how Bones, 
> Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the Enterprise, so you can write 
> that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up in season one of 
> the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring him in 
> for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's 
> original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?
>
> Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit 
> for "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found 
> on Earth (something blamed on "First Contact) And while some 
> of that made some of us howl, as the series got better toward its 
> end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we liked it precisely because it 
> was exploring the themes from the OS that had always been there. 
> So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored the 
> original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they 
> did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, 
> we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion 
> "slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the 
> Eugenics War, and set the stage for Data's creation somedaythe 
> study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming 
> violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the 
> dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and 
> racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for 
> the most part.
>
> I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father-- 
> oh, it just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast 
> with the later hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.-- 
> oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more 
> poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar 
> all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I guess the 
> OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that.
>
> Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to 
> recreate it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh 
> stories in Trek within the original continuity. I have felt all 
> along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour 
> to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head schoo

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Bosco Bosco]

Keith

One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up 
front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek 
Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not lazy. 
That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not lazy. 
It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of research, 
thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices you would not 
have does not make him a lazy story teller.

I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities and 
amazing worlds
of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast away for better 
story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES WELL!!!

I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new 
Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that it 
has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. Indicative, 
I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe life into the 
franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some of the older 
generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of
what was, simply makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some 
"Trekditionalists" get a bunch of funds together to make another in long line 
of generally subpar science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and we're just 
visiting. Time to find a way to move on.

Bosco
--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson  wrote:

From: Keith Johnson 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM
















  
  I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The 
old continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. 
The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" 
--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all 
that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought together 
this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not 
just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his crew in 
the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's ever 
said there was only one way that could have been done.

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some of that made some of 
us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, 
we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel
 Green's xenophobia and racism--   All good stories, all told in *original* 
continuity for the most part.

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why
we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost 
and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's
undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I 
guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just
didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. There is no 
reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the original 
continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star 
Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over- the-head school of 
filmmaking. Thus he all but dest

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Omari Confer]

(applause) Thats what im talkin about...

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Daryle Lockhart
wrote:

>
>
>  I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the old
> continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off after "First
> Contact", they had to make up species because --  where do you go after The
> Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's another  discussion) The reason
> everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it stepped outside of continuity.
> After all, how COULD Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet
> explode and people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars
> BLEW UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years
> later. But that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie
> series gone on the way the first  movie dictated, it would have died after
> 3.
>
> That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think there
> is ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with everyone.
>
> Ready?
>
> Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way he'd
> originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story, update a few
> things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this franchise's history,
>  by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City On the Edge Of Forever",
> with the right Edith Keeler, and I dare say that  it could be the first
> science fiction film to  be nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance.
> Mystery. SCIENCE.
>
> I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.
>
>
> On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old
> continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The
> Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including
> "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find
> something in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have
> brought together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the
> timeline? Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk
> assembled his crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not
> exactly as if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been
> done.
>
> My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast
> members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the
> original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We
> don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to
> the Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never
> showed up in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a
> bit and bring him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of
> Kirk's original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?
>
> Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for
> "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth
> (something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some of that made some
> of us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay.
> Indeed, we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the
> OS that had always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least
> they explored the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it
> right, they did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it.
> Thus, we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion
> "slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics
> War, and set the stage for Data's creation somedaythe study of how
> Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming violently emotional
> again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the dude who was a disciple of
> Colonel Green's xenophobia and racism--   All good stories, all told in
> *original* continuity for the most part.
>
> I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it
> just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later
> hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes
> Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make
> Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get
> the struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting
> that.
>
> Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate
> it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek
> within the original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a
> guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the
> hit-you-over-the-head school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the
> Vulcan race and sees it as opening up things, rather than a critical blow to
> what makes Trek, Trek.
>
> I haven't seen or heard yet one th

Re: [scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

[Omari Confer]

Welcome!!!

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Michelle Lauren <
miche...@michellelaurenbooks.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi everyone. I just joined the group and wanted to introduce myself. I'm a
> published author, a freelance writer and a regular columnist for *Romance
> Writers Report*, the national magazine for Romance Writers of America. I
> am an eclectic reader, but I truly enjoy reading (and writing)
> sci-fi-futuristic and urban fantasy romances with multicultural characters.
>
> My first book published with Liquid Silver Books is called *STARSTRUCK:
> HUNTER*, a multicultural sci-fi romance. There is a link to it in my
> signature line if you want to read a blurb. And, if you're interested, *I'm
> being interviewed today about the book and I'm giving away a Border's Gift
> Card.* (Here's the interview link:
> http://jennifersrandommusings.wordpress.com)
>
> I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (I saw some discussion here about his show
> DOLLHOUSE likely getting renewed for Season 2 -- thank goodness! I love that
> show). I hope to chat more with you all soon.
>
>
> Michelle Lauren
> STARSTRUCK: HUNTER(Multicultural Sci-Fi Romance)Available from Liquid
> Silver Books
> *Buy Link: *http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/books/starstruckhunter.htm
>
> HOW TO TAME A HARPY ~ a *Romantic Times* magazine American Title V
> finalist
> http://www.michellelaurenbooks.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michellelaurenbooks/join
>  (Join
> for
> excerpts,contests, interviews & more!)
>  
>



-- 
clockworkman blog
http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com
STRING THEORY
http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
Netflix Friends
http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/P5Vr384ukvNnY78xUJOT

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Daryle Lockhart]

I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But the  
old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell off  
after "First Contact", they had to make up species because --  where  
do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to  DS9,  but that's another   
discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is because it  
stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD Chekov have known  
Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and people survive in a  
shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW UP one day, we  
wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years later. But that  
didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the movie series gone  
on the way the first  movie dictated, it would have died after 3.


That being said,  this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think  
there is ONE direction to  go in that  would make things right with  
everyone.


Ready?

Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way  
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story,  
update a few things, and end one of the darkest  chapters in this  
franchise's history,  by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour "City  
On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I dare say  
that  it could be the first science fiction film to  be nominated for  
an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.


I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.


On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:





I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like  
"The old continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just  
lazy film making. The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies,  
and --including "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling  
me he couldn't find something in *all that* to fuel new, action- 
driven stories? He couldn't have brought together this crew in the  
movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not just  
have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his  
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as  
if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been  
done.


My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young  
cast members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than  
Kirk was in the original timeline when he became captain, but you  
can work around that. We don't know the backstories of how Bones,  
Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the Enterprise, so you can write  
that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up in season one of  
the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring him in  
for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's  
original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?


Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit  
for "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found  
on Earth (something blamed on "First Contact)  And while some  
of that made some of us howl, as the series got better toward its  
end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we liked it precisely because it  
was exploring the themes from the OS that had always been there.  
So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored the  
original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they  
did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus,  
we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion  
"slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the  
Eugenics War, and set the stage for Data's creation somedaythe  
study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming  
violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the  
dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and  
racism--   All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for  
the most part.


I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father-- 
oh, it just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast  
with the later hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.-- 
oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more  
poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar  
all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I guess the  
OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that.


Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to  
recreate it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh  
stories in Trek within the original continuity. I have felt all  
along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour  
to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head school of  
filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as  
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek,  
Trek.


I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you  
have to destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down  
the old instead of 

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

Thanks. Man, doc told me to watch my pressure. Gotta calm down now. 

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:11:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 








(standing ovation) 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan 
Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 15:52:29 + (UTC) 
>From : Keith Johnson  
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Cc : ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 

I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia! and racism-- 
All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most part. 

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act 
like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the 
struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. 
There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the 
original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who 
thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head 
school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as 
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. 

I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to 
destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of 
building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is 
liberating. 
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Tracey de Morsella" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner 
Or Khan 











Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan 

'I wouldn't rule out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas 

After last weekend's $76.5 million opening , three phrases keep getting tossed 
in the direction of "Star Trek" director J.J. Abrams: sequel, Khan, and William 
Shatner. 

On Friday, as the filmmaker hoped to maintain momentum heading into his second 
weekend, Abrams told MTV News that he's open to all three. 

"The fun of this [new 

RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

[Martin Baxter]

No, Reece, I couldn't have done it. The minute she asked him to do it, I tried.

Started with "X"...

Martin (hasn't touched a drop since 1987)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 08:27:01 -0400

 From : "Reece Jennings" 

 To : 


.snort..burpcough...huh?
Did I miss something?
 
Sounds like there was a DUI video...?
But from what you said about Z to A...? That's not a valid test. Can you
do it WITHOUT
being under the influence? (notice as an ex-sergeant, I didn't say DRUNK!)
 
Counting backwards is a valid test. NOT saying the alphabet backwards. 
 
A good lawyer would have him out right after the cop couldn't do the
backwards alphabet!
 
Now..where was I? Oh, yeah
 
zz
 
:o)
 

 _ 

From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Martin Baxter
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:02 AM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)






After the Z-to-A backwards thing, I would've been cuffed and stuffed.







-[ Received Mail Content ]--
Subject : [scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece) [1 Attachment]
Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From : Augustus Augustus 
To : Sci Fi 



Fate. 

 







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds 





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Martin Baxter]

(standing ovation)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William 
Shatner Or Khan

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 15:52:29 + (UTC)

 From : Keith Johnson 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com

 Cc : ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net


I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did 
a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and!
  racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most 
part. 

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act 
like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the 
struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. 
There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the 
original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who 
thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head 
school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as 
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. 

I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to 
destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of 
building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is 
liberating. 
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Tracey de Morsella"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner 
Or Khan 











Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan 

'I wouldn't rule out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas 

After last weekend's $76.5 million opening , three phrases keep getting tossed 
in the direction of "Star Trek" director J.J. Abrams: sequel, Khan, and William 
Shatner. 

On Friday, as the filmmaker hoped to maintain momentum heading into his second 
weekend, Abrams told MTV News that he's open to all three. 

"The fun of this [new alternate 'Trek' reality] is that the destiny of these 
characters is in their hands — it's not constrained by the pre-existing films 
or TV series," the "Lost" mastermind explained. "Believe me, whether it's 
William Shatner or Khan ... it would be ridiculous to not be open to those 
ideas." 

As those who've seen the film know

Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

[Keith Johnson]

ha-ha-ha! 

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:54:45 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 








Keith, probably still using Windows NT or Me... 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 
Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 01:11:33 + (UTC) 
>From : Keith Johnson  
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 

Just nitpicking and over analyzing the films. As for the Borg, I just thought 
there could have been another way. Heck, my Windows laptop has better 
safeguards than that Cube! 

- Original Message - 
From: wlro...@aol.com 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:05:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 









I have to agree with you on Independence Day. But as for Star Trek perhaps Data 
knew everything that Picard had known so far. Who knows, besides I don't think 
at that time movie goers would love to see a movie that Wil Smith did not win 
in and I don't think the guys at Star Trek would love a show where the 
Federation lost. Or for that matter too badly. 
--Lavender 




From: Keith Johnson 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:31 PM 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 


I don't know the locales, but even then it seems unlikely he'd find one woman 
and child amidst all that wreckage. Especially since she had to deviate from 
the route and hide in that little cubbyhole. Didn't he locate her at night, to 
boot? 

As for the computer virus, that's just lazy writing. Whether they use binary or 
not as the base language isn't the issue. It's whether you believe that even a 
genius computer hack could write a virus small enough to fit on a floppy that 
could break the firewalls, anti-virus scans, pop up blockers, malware/adware 
detectors, quarantine protections, and heuristics programs (a feature of 
anti-virus software that lets the computer look for patterns in behaviour of 
new code, and decide that even if it's not *sure* the code is dangerous, its 
characteristics make it *likely* it is). 

This is especially difficult to believe since their code would be so foreign, 
no way humans could understand it enough to do that in a few days or even 
weeks' time. And difficult to believe since the aliens have a structure where 
all ships are tied to the functionality of the mothership--a convenient and 
irritating Achille's Heel--that the mothership's computers could be that 
vulnerable. There'd be safeguards on top of safeguards, including a system to 
simply reject and quarantine any code coming in from outside normal channels. 

Incidentally, I had a similar problem in The Next Generation when Data working 
with Picard put the Borg to "sleep" and caused the Cube to explode. I was 
yelling at the screen "Come on! No way a race that sophisticated, built around 
computerized systems that add the power of all into a big One, would be fooled 
like that!" Low level program or not, there' be major checks and balances in 
every level of the IT infrastructure, from base code to operating systems to 
even mechanical safeguards. There'd be systems all along the way that'd say 
"Hey, we're in the middle of an Assimilation, everyone wake up!", or "Hey, 
power levels are climbing dangerously high! Break the circuit and wake up!" 

I know, I know, nitpicking "Independence Day" to death. But like I said for me 
it wasn't popcorn-campy enough to put my brain on hold and have fun, so the 
brain just kept finding the flaws. But worst of all, loyal American that I am, 
I was most undone by the "rah-rah! USA! USA!" nature of Pullman's speech, and 
the world's militaries literally standing around waiting for the US to come up 
with a battle plan! 



- Original Message - 
From: "Augustus Augustus" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:46:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 









Mr. Worf, 
a couple of the questions i can answer. 
first - he did not find his girlfriend in LA, he found her at MCAS Yuma 
(remember, he told her 2 pack a bag and 4 her and her son 2 come down 2 the 
base...so when him and connick flew over LA, connick said "man, 
i'm sure she made it out". so it makes sense that he would go 2 Yuma. 
second - the computers, i do not have a clue! we are always told that binary is 
the universal math. what if that is not the case? 

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Mr. Worf wrote: 



From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM 





Yea, Independence day bugged the crap out of me too. I was thinking ok, where 
are the other planes and ground troops? How the hell could he find his 
girlfriend amongst all of the ruins of LA on a tank of gas in a helicop

Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan

[Keith Johnson]

I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The old 
continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just lazy film making. The 
Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including 
"enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something 
in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought 
together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? 
Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his 
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's 
ever said there was only one way that could have been done. 

My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast 
members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the 
original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We 
don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the 
Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up 
in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring 
him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's original 
mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? 

Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for 
"Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth 
(something blamed on "First Contact) And while some of that made some of us 
howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we 
liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that had 
always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored 
the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they did a 
great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we all loved the 
storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion "slaves"...the Augment 
storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics War, and set the stage for 
Data's creation somedaythe study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the 
brink of becoming violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings 
anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and racism-- 
All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the most part. 

I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it just 
makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later hero 
he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's 
feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act 
like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the 
struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. 

Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. 
There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the 
original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who 
thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head 
school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as 
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. 

I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to 
destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of 
building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is 
liberating. 
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Tracey de Morsella"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner 
Or Khan 











Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan 

'I wouldn't rule out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas 

After last weekend's $76.5 million opening , three phrases keep getting tossed 
in the direction of "Star Trek" director J.J. Abrams: sequel, Khan, and William 
Shatner. 

On Friday, as the filmmaker hoped to maintain momentum heading into his second 
weekend, Abrams told MTV News that he's open to all three. 

"The fun of this [new alternate 'Trek' reality] is that the destiny of these 
characters is in their hands — it's not constrained by the pre-existing films 
or TV series," the "Lost" mastermind explained. "Believe me, whether it's 
William Shatner or Khan ... it would be ridiculous to not be open to those 
ideas." 

As those who've seen the film know, Abrams' new "Star Trek" establishes an 
alternate timeline for the series' key characters — one that veers off course 
when the USS Kelvin is attacked in the film's opening scene, killing James T. 
Kirk's father and causing the future Enterprise captain to be born in space. 
Other events in the film also similarly imp

Re: [scifinoir2] Schwarzenegger under fire over mass sell-off plans

[Keith Johnson]

Fascinating... 

- Original Message - 
From: "Mr. Worf"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:13:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Schwarzenegger under fire over mass sell-off plans 








Gray Davis' budget problems were about 10% of what we're looking at now. Next 
week it is going to be $21 Billion. 

The Golden Gate bridge is managed by a sweetheart group that is picked by the 
San Francisco board of supervisors. (usually for contributions) Some of the 
board members have been on the board for decades. Officially they are paid a 
small amount for participating, but they also receive a large amount off the 
books. The decision making made by the directors is independent of the all of 
the other bridges in the bay area and the rest of the state. The Oakland/Bay 
bridge carries 10 times the amount of people per day but is often rarely 
mentioned. They are currently trying to build a new Oakland bridge along side 
of the old one. 

By the way, the toll went up to $6 this year for the Golden Gate bridge. 


On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > 
wrote: 






Has Ahnuld done any better than Gray Davis, the former governor he excoriated 
in public for running up the state's deficit? 
So the Golden Gate Bridge is privately owned? 

- Original Message - 
From: "Mr. Worf" < hellomahog...@gmail.com > 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:35:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Schwarzenegger under fire over mass sell-off plans 








A lot of California's problems come from representatives that do not want to 
come up with a compromise and too many sweetheart deals thrown in on a lot of 
state bill proposals. One of the more infamous ones was a bill that raised fund 
for schools but also tacked on a $150 million fund for another prison. 

The Golden Gate bridge is practically privately owned. It has a private 
planning board. Plus a $5 toll. 


On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > 
wrote: 






Oh hell, I hate to admit it, but maybe they need to produce a few more movies 
with the likes of Will Smith and Beyonce Knowles, then give all the profits to 
the state! But what's next, selling the Golden Gate Bridge to Dubai? Cutting 
down some of the great redwood forest and selling the wood? 

El nino...mud slides...raging brush fires...droughts...earthquakes...budget 
deficits--whereever the original Natives who lived there are now, I wonder if 
they're laughing or crying? 

** 
Schwarzenegger under fire over mass sell-off plans 




SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Faced with a massive budget crisis , California Governor 
Arnold Schwarzenegger has outlined major budget cuts and plans to sell some of 
the state's most treasured landmarks. 

Schwarzenegger unveiled proposals on Thursday to replenish California's state 
coffers and counter an estimated budget shortfall of 15.4 billion dollars . 

Plans include drastic budget cuts, as well as the sale of the Los Angeles 
Coliseum , which hosted the Olympic Games in 1932 and 1984 and the 157-year-old 
San Quentin state prison , which houses over 5,000 inmates. 

"To solve our immediate cash crisis, we simply cannot avoid deep and painful 
cuts in spending," said Schwarzenegger. 

"Some of these solutions are things I would never have considered in the past 
but, unfortunately, our state could be in a worst case scenario if the 
propositions fail." 

But the new plans, which came less then a week before a vote was due in special 
elections that include five provisions to mend the state's budget woes, have 
faced strong criticism. 

"Whoever made the decision to throw this on the table five days before an 
election made a boneheaded decision," Zev Yaroslavsky , president of the 
Coliseum commission, told the Los Angeles Times . 

"People are not as foolish as some politicians think they are." 

Schwarzenegger has said that if the state fails to vote through his tough 
measures on May 19, the deficit will increase to 21.3 billion dollars. 

He has also warned that his contingency plan would see thousands of lay-offs, 
shorten the public school year by at least seven days, as well as include 
healthcare cuts to about 225,000 children and the release of thousands of 
undocumented immigrants . 

"Californians have a right to know the truth about the size of the problem our 
state is facing," he said. 

California has been battered by the recession, which has sent tax revenues 
nose-diving. The state, global center of high technology and the movie 
industry, has a 1.8-trillion-dollar economy that generates about 13 percent of 
US gross domestic product. 









-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! 
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ 









-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!

RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

[Reece Jennings]

.snort..burpcough...huh?
Did I miss something?
 
Sounds like there was a DUI video...?
But from what you said about Z to A...?  That's not a valid test.  Can you
do it WITHOUT
being under the influence?  (notice as an ex-sergeant, I didn't say DRUNK!)
 
Counting backwards is a valid test.  NOT saying the alphabet backwards.  
 
A good lawyer would have him out right after the cop couldn't do the
backwards alphabet!
 
Now..where was I?   Oh, yeah
 
zz
 
:o)
 

  _  

From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Martin Baxter
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:02 AM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)






After the Z-to-A backwards thing, I would've been cuffed and stuffed.







-[ Received Mail Content ]--
Subject : [scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece) [1 Attachment]
Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From : Augustus Augustus 
To : Sci Fi 



Fate. 

  







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds 

RE: [RE][scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

[Reece Jennings]

Ditto, Michelle, on the welcome.  And the bizarre behavior feeds on itself!
:o)
 
Maurice
 

  _  

From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Martin Baxter
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:08 AM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren






Welcome to the group, Michelle! And please don't be afraid of the sometimes
bizarre behavior you may see here. 

The Internet made me this way. ;-)







-[ Received Mail Content ]--
Subject : [scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren
Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 11:10:01 -
>From : "Michelle Lauren" 
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com

Hi everyone. I just joined the group and wanted to introduce myself. I'm 
a published author, a freelance writer and a regular columnist for 
Romance Writers Report, the national magazine for Romance Writers of 
America. I am an eclectic reader, but I truly enjoy reading (and 
writing) sci-fi-futuristic and urban fantasy romances with multicultural 
characters. 

My first book published with Liquid Silver Books is called STARSTRUCK: 
HUNTER, a multicultural sci-fi romance. There is a link to it in my 
signature line if you want to read a blurb. And, if you're interested, 
I'm being interviewed today about the book and I'm giving away a 
Border's Gift Card. (Here's the interview link: 
http://jennifersrandommusings.wordpress.com) 

I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (I saw some discussion here about his show 
DOLLHOUSE likely getting renewed for Season 2 -- thank goodness! I love 
that show). I hope to chat more with you all soon. 


Michelle Lauren 
STARSTRUCK: HUNTER(Multicultural Sci-Fi Romance)Available from Liquid 
Silver Books 
Buy Link: http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/books/starstruckhunter.htm 

HOW TO TAME A HARPY ~ a Romantic Times magazine American Title V 
finalist 
http://www.michellelaurenbooks.com 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michellelaurenbooks/join 
<../../../../../michellelaurenbooks/join> (Join for 
excerpts,contests, interviews & more!) 





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds 

[RE][scifinoir2] Fox Looks To The Unusual And Super-Science For Next Year

[Martin Baxter]

Well, I'm leaping at the sight of Human Target (loved the comic), but then I 
think seven soul-numbing words.

This is Fox of which we speak...





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Fox Looks To The Unusual And Super-Science For Next Year

 Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 15:56:57 -0700

 From : "Tracey de Morsella" 

 To : , ,   



http://io9.com/5255166/fox-looks-to-the-unusual-and-super+science-for-next-y
ear

 

Fox seems determined to make Fringe one of the more sensible, down-to-earth
dramas on the channel, judging by the new shows they're announcing for next
year. Murder procedurals about reincarnation and masters of disguise ahoy!

With rumors of a Dollhouse  return still
circling ahead of next week's announcements of the network's fall line-up -
Sadly, much less chatter about Terminator getting a third season - Fox have
already announced that they've picked up Past Life
 and Human Target
 as series.

Target, based on a DC comic, centers around Christopher Chance, a bodyguard
who protects his clients by taking their place. For anyone who's ever wanted
to see the super-science of shows like Bones and CSI applied to the world of
make-up, this will be your chance (No pun, etc.); this plus side will be if
the show follows the lead of the most recent comic take on the character,
adding a messed-up layer of identity politics and confusion to the drama. If
Terminator doesn't end up getting renewed, this could be the ideal partner
for a second year of Dollhouse.

Past Life, on the other hand, sounds like an ideal pairing with Fringe,
being a show about detectives using somewhat unusual methods - like talking
to the dead, or investigating victims' former incarnations - in order to get
their perp. While it may lack Fringe's wonderful use of parallel Earths, I'd
be surprised if it doesn't allow for jerky camera shots and fast edits just
as much.

Fox announce their complete fall line-up next Monday.

 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[RE][scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

[Martin Baxter]

Welcome to the group, Michelle! And please don't be afraid of the sometimes 
bizarre behavior you may see here. 

The Internet made me this way. ;-)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 11:10:01 -

 From : "Michelle Lauren" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


Hi everyone. I just joined the group and wanted to introduce myself. I'm
a published author, a freelance writer and a regular columnist for
Romance Writers Report, the national magazine for Romance Writers of
America. I am an eclectic reader, but I truly enjoy reading (and
writing) sci-fi-futuristic and urban fantasy romances with multicultural
characters.

My first book published with Liquid Silver Books is called STARSTRUCK:
HUNTER, a multicultural sci-fi romance. There is a link to it in my
signature line if you want to read a blurb. And, if you're interested,
I'm being interviewed today about the book and I'm giving away a
Border's Gift Card. (Here's the interview link:
http://jennifersrandommusings.wordpress.com)

I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (I saw some discussion here about his show
DOLLHOUSE likely getting renewed for Season 2 -- thank goodness! I love
that show). I hope to chat more with you all soon.


Michelle Lauren
STARSTRUCK: HUNTER(Multicultural Sci-Fi Romance)Available from Liquid
Silver Books
Buy Link: http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/books/starstruckhunter.htm

HOW TO TAME A HARPY ~ a Romantic Times magazine American Title V
finalist
http://www.michellelaurenbooks.com 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michellelaurenbooks/join
<../../../../../michellelaurenbooks/join> (Join for
excerpts,contests, interviews & more!)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

[Martin Baxter]

BTB -- failed to add that I am LMNAO!





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 08:01:37 -0400 (EDT)

 From : "Martin Baxter" 

 To : 














 
 
 


 
 
   After the Z-to-A backwards thing, I would've been cuffed and stuffed.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece) [1 Attachment]

 Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT)

 From : Augustus Augustus 

 To : Sci Fi 



Fate.

 


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

 

  

 
 



















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[RE][scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece)

[Martin Baxter]

After the Z-to-A backwards thing, I would've been cuffed and stuffed.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Best DUI ever (again, 4 Reece) [1 Attachment]

 Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT)

 From : Augustus Augustus 

 To : Sci Fi 



Fate.

 


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[scifinoir2] Fw: World Science: Monkey found to wonder what might have been

[Amy]

ahar...@earthlink.net
Cool science stuff.

Subject: World Science: Monkey found to wonder what might have been


* Monkeys found to wonder what might have 
been:
Recordings of brain cells show that monkeys take
note of missed opportunities and learn from their
mistakes, scientists say.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090514_monkeys


* Warriors don't always get the girl:
Violence isn't the ticket to having more wives and
children among all tribal peoples, according to
anthropologists.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090512_waorani


* Race is on to preserve "oldest submerged 
town":
An ancient site associated with a legendary Greek
"age of heroes" may be about to give up its secrets.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090513_pavlopetri


* Acupuncture found to beat "usual" care for back 
pain:
A study is reviving questions for some about how the
traditional Chinese treatment might really work.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090511_acupuncture


* Study links daydreaming to problem-solving:
Our brains are much more active when we daydream
than previously thought, a study has found.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090513_daydream


* Memories stolen by Alzheimer's may be 
retrievable: study:
Scientists have found a gene said to have enabled
mice with an Alzheimer's disease-like condition to
recover lost memories.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090507_alzheimer






World Science homepage
Don't forget to visit our homepage for Science In
Images; links to top science news from other publi-
cations; and other recent World Science stories!

http://www.world-science.net


World Science archives
To new readers especially: you need not miss our ex-
citing past stories, though they won't appear in future
newsletters. See archives for any year by typing that 
year after the homepage address: for example, 

http://www.world-science.net/2007 


Invite friends to join World Science!
Click here to open an invitation email you can send 
friends and colleagues so they can join you in sub-
scribing to World Science at no charge. Feel free to 
change the email text (although you might want to 
leave the subscription instructions unchanged.)


More information 
This is the World Science newsletter. To cancel your 
subscription, please reply to this email address with
"cancel" in the subject line. To subscribe, write to 
this email address with "subscribe" in the subject 
line. To change the address where you receive the 
newsletter, simply subscribe the new address and 
cancel the old one.
Any World Science article may be reproduced on 
another website, on condition that it is reproduced 
along with a link to the World Science homepage, 
http://www.world-science.net. Linking to the page of 
the original article is optional.








No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.31/2116 - Release Date: 05/15/09 
06:16:00

Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

[Martin Baxter]

Keith, probably still using Windows NT or Me...





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

 Date : Sat, 16 May 2009 01:11:33 + (UTC)

 From : Keith Johnson 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


Just nitpicking and over analyzing the films. As for the Borg, I just thought 
there could have been another way. Heck, my Windows laptop has better 
safeguards than that Cube! 

- Original Message - 
From: wlro...@aol.com 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:05:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 









I have to agree with you on Independence Day. But as for Star Trek perhaps Data 
knew everything that Picard had known so far. Who knows, besides I don't think 
at that time movie goers would love to see a movie that Wil Smith did not win 
in and I don't think the guys at Star Trek would love a show where the 
Federation lost. Or for that matter too badly. 
--Lavender 




From: Keith Johnson 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:31 PM 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 


I don't know the locales, but even then it seems unlikely he'd find one woman 
and child amidst all that wreckage. Especially since she had to deviate from 
the route and hide in that little cubbyhole. Didn't he locate her at night, to 
boot? 

As for the computer virus, that's just lazy writing. Whether they use binary or 
not as the base language isn't the issue. It's whether you believe that even a 
genius computer hack could write a virus small enough to fit on a floppy that 
could break the firewalls, anti-virus scans, pop up blockers, malware/adware 
detectors, quarantine protections, and heuristics programs (a feature of 
anti-virus software that lets the computer look for patterns in behaviour of 
new code, and decide that even if it's not *sure* the code is dangerous, its 
characteristics make it *likely* it is). 

This is especially difficult to believe since their code would be so foreign, 
no way humans could understand it enough to do that in a few days or even 
weeks' time. And difficult to believe since the aliens have a structure where 
all ships are tied to the functionality of the mothership--a convenient and 
irritating Achille's Heel--that the mothership's computers could be that 
vulnerable. There'd be safeguards on top of safeguards, including a system to 
simply reject and quarantine any code coming in from outside normal channels. 

Incidentally, I had a similar problem in The Next Generation when Data working 
with Picard put the Borg to "sleep" and caused the Cube to explode. I was 
yelling at the screen "Come on! No way a race that sophisticated, built around 
computerized systems that add the power of all into a big One, would be fooled 
like that!" Low level program or not, there' be major checks and balances in 
every level of the IT infrastructure, from base code to operating systems to 
even mechanical safeguards. There'd be systems all along the way that'd say 
"Hey, we're in the middle of an Assimilation, everyone wake up!", or "Hey, 
power levels are climbing dangerously high! Break the circuit and wake up!" 

I know, I know, nitpicking "Independence Day" to death. But like I said for me 
it wasn't popcorn-campy enough to put my brain on hold and have fun, so the 
brain just kept finding the flaws. But worst of all, loyal American that I am, 
I was most undone by the "rah-rah! USA! USA!" nature of Pullman's speech, and 
the world's militaries literally standing around waiting for the US to come up 
with a battle plan! 



- Original Message - 
From: "Augustus Augustus"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:46:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 









Mr. Worf, 
a couple of the questions i can answer. 
first - he did not find his girlfriend in LA, he found her at MCAS Yuma 
(remember, he told her 2 pack a bag and 4 her and her son 2 come down 2 the 
base...so when him and connick flew over LA, connick said "man, 
i'm sure she made it out". so it makes sense that he would go 2 Yuma. 
second - the computers, i do not have a clue! we are always told that binary is 
the universal math. what if that is not the case? 

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Mr. Worf  wrote: 



From: Mr. Worf  
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM 





Yea, Independence day bugged the crap out of me too. I was thinking ok, where 
are the other planes and ground troops? How the hell could he find his 
girlfriend amongst all of the ruins of LA on a tank of gas in a helicopter? How 
the hell did the alien computers work like ours? Someone call JJ Abrams its 
time for a remake! :) 


On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Keith Johnson < KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net > 
wrote: 






Call everyone I

Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

[Martin Baxter]

@Mr Worf -- the punch line is yours...





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

 Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 21:47:44 -0400

 From : 

 To : 


I agree with you. I mean perhaps the queen would use a Mac next time instead of 
Vista. But out of all of the mistakes of the second episode you have to admit, 
that damn Wesley was not in the way.
--Lavender


From: Keith Johnson 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:11 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here





Just nitpicking and over analyzing the films. As for the Borg, I just thought 
there could have been another way. Heck, my Windows laptop has better 
safeguards than that Cube!

- Original Message -
From: wlro...@aol.com
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:05:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here





I have to agree with you on Independence Day. But as for Star Trek perhaps Data 
knew everything that Picard had known so far. Who knows, besides I don't think 
at that time movie goers would love to see a movie that Wil Smith did not win 
in and I don't think the guys at Star Trek would love a show where the 
Federation lost. Or for that matter too badly.
--Lavender


From: Keith Johnson 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:31 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here


I don't know the locales, but even then it seems unlikely he'd find one woman 
and child amidst all that wreckage. Especially since she had to deviate from 
the route and hide in that little cubbyhole. Didn't he locate her at night, to 
boot? 

As for the computer virus, that's just lazy writing. Whether they use binary or 
not as the base language isn't the issue. It's whether you believe that even a 
genius computer hack could write a virus small enough to fit on a floppy that 
could break the firewalls, anti-virus scans, pop up blockers, malware/adware 
detectors, quarantine protections, and heuristics programs (a feature of 
anti-virus software that lets the computer look for patterns in behaviour of 
new code, and decide that even if it's not *sure* the code is dangerous, its 
characteristics make it *likely* it is). 

This is especially difficult to believe since their code would be so foreign, 
no way humans could understand it enough to do that in a few days or even 
weeks' time. And difficult to believe since the aliens have a structure where 
all ships are tied to the functionality of the mothership--a convenient and 
irritating Achille's Heel--that the mothership's computers could be that 
vulnerable. There'd be safeguards on top of safeguards, including a system to 
simply reject and quarantine any code coming in from outside normal channels.

Incidentally, I had a similar problem in The Next Generation when Data working 
with Picard put the Borg to "sleep" and caused the Cube to explode. I was 
yelling at the screen "Come on! No way a race that sophisticated, built around 
computerized systems that add the power of all into a big One, would be fooled 
like that!" Low level program or not, there' be major checks and balances in 
every level of the IT infrastructure, from base code to operating systems to 
even mechanical safeguards. There'd be systems all along the way that'd say 
"Hey, we're in the middle of an Assimilation, everyone wake up!", or "Hey, 
power levels are climbing dangerously high! Break the circuit and wake up!"

I know, I know, nitpicking "Independence Day" to death. But like I said for me 
it wasn't popcorn-campy enough to put my brain on hold and have fun, so the 
brain just kept finding the flaws. But worst of all, loyal American that I am, 
I was most undone by the "rah-rah! USA! USA!" nature of Pullman's speech, and 
the world's militaries literally standing around waiting for the US to come up 
with a battle plan!



- Original Message -
From: "Augustus Augustus" 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:46:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here





 Mr. Worf, 
 a couple of the questions i can answer. 
 first - he did not find his girlfriend in LA, he found her at MCAS Yuma 
(remember, he told her 2 pack a bag and 4 her and her son 2 come down 2 the 
base...so when him and connick flew over LA, connick said "man, 
i'm sure she made it out". so it makes sense that he would go 2 Yuma. 
 second - the computers, i do not have a clue! we are always told that binary 
is the universal math. what if that is not the case? 

 --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:


 From: Mr. Worf 
 Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here
 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM


 Yea, Independence day bugged the crap out of me too. I was thinking ok, where 
are the other planes and ground troops? How the hell could he find his 
girlfriend amongst all of the 

Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

[Martin Baxter]

As long as they chip in for food (or provide their own), are willing to talk 
about their travels and don't make a mess, I'm good with that.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] topic: They are here

 Date : Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:06 -0700

 From : "Mr. Worf" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


What if it turns out to be one of the other scenarios like, "hey we're lost,
can we crash on your couch for a while?"



On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Daryle Lockhart
wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm of the opinion that should this situation happen, it's the original
> Earth owners coming back for their stuff. So either we're all about to be
> vaporized, or 4 and 20 Nubians are about to come down talking about "why
> are we using cement to build stuff and what are all these people doing in
> the cold places". In either case, I'm rolling film.
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 1:18 AM, Mr. Worf wrote:
>
>
>
> Early Sunday morning the sun is shining, birds chirping. You get out of
> bed, open the curtains and look out the window. Out over the horizon is a
> large floating ship about 2/3rds the size of the horizon. They are here. It
> finally happened. What would you do?
>
>
>
>
> 
>



-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[scifinoir2] Newbie: Hello from Author Michelle Lauren

[Michelle Lauren]

Hi everyone. I just joined the group and wanted to introduce myself. I'm
a published author, a freelance writer and a regular columnist for
Romance Writers Report, the national magazine for Romance Writers of
America. I am an eclectic reader, but I truly enjoy reading (and
writing) sci-fi-futuristic and urban fantasy romances with multicultural
characters.

My first book published with Liquid Silver Books is called STARSTRUCK:
HUNTER, a multicultural sci-fi romance. There is a link to it in my
signature line if you want to read a blurb. And, if you're interested,
I'm being interviewed today about the book and I'm giving away a
Border's Gift Card. (Here's the interview link:
http://jennifersrandommusings.wordpress.com)

I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (I saw some discussion here about his show
DOLLHOUSE likely getting renewed for Season 2 -- thank goodness! I love
that show). I hope to chat more with you all soon.


Michelle Lauren
STARSTRUCK: HUNTER(Multicultural Sci-Fi Romance)Available from Liquid
Silver Books
Buy Link: http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/books/starstruckhunter.htm

HOW TO TAME A HARPY ~ a Romantic Times magazine American Title V
finalist
http://www.michellelaurenbooks.com 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michellelaurenbooks/join
<../../../../../michellelaurenbooks/join>  (Join for
excerpts,contests, interviews & more!)

Re: [scifinoir2] Dollhouse Renewal Looking More Likely

[Justin Mohareb]

I don't think there's any maybe about it.

Justin


On 16-May-09, at 1:19 AM, "Mr. Worf"  wrote:




Maybe I'm jaded but it just feels sort of rehashed of another show  
and overly predictable.



On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Bosco Bosco   
wrote:



Dollhouse has amazing plot, lots of layers, great story telling and  
Whedon's trademark stellar character development. What makes you  
think it's weak on plot. Seasonal Story Arc was killah.


B

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Mr. Worf  wrote:

From: Mr. Worf 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dollhouse Renewal Looking More Likely
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 9:10 PM

Here is another show that is weak on science and plot but still kind  
of entertaining.



On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Tracey de Morsella  
 wrote:



Dollhouse Renewal Looking More Likely

By Charlie Jane Anders, 12:27 PM on Fri May 15 2009, 2,975 views

is "leaning toward" renewing Joss Whedon's Dollhouse, based on  
strong DVR/online numbers. Much depends on eleventh-hour  
negotiations, with Fox wanting a cheaper show. Apparently, execs  
like the show, especially the latest episodes. Fingers crossed!









--
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/mahogany_ pleasures_  
of_darkness/







--
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/