Posted without comment.
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As ‘Fun, Watchable’
Tip o’ the VISOR to Gordie Lachance.
Awesome. I love, “Gene Roddenberry was the hack who created the series back in the 40s or something.” I’m ready for the Thursday screening!
How dare they! I’m shocked. I shall take my Warrigul and hunt those people down.
Hahaha, it’s funny because those are my actual concerns. I’m worried that they’ve changed a complex franchise advocating secular humanist values into an insubstantial action movie. I guess I’ll need to wait to see the movie when it comes out to find out if my fears are justified. However, I became even more worried when I saw last night that the director didn’t like Star Trek prior to directing this and has made multiple shows about paranormal things, thus continuing the transition to woo that took place in Voyager.
Can’t see the video here at work. But I plan to go and see it but not this weekend, maybe in the next couple of weeks.
Now THAT’s art!
There’s some laughs to be had at the official movie site forums, too. A quick glance found this gem:
“…The reporters on this piece seemed to be living in their own little ironic world.”
This, from a Trek fanboy. Then there’s the guy who bashed the reporters for “not doing their research”.
However, anyone who uses the derogatory term “fanboy” needs to be taken away for a little chat. Stop that; it makes you sound trendy.
Well, on today of all days, I simply had to come over here to look at the thread about this anniversary. And there isn’t one.
48 years ago today… Alan Shepard, Freedom 7.
Sad, Phil, just sad.
Howard Stern said it was the best science fiction movie he had ever seen.
Mike C, if I posted about every anniversary that relates to space, that’s all this blog would be.
And I’m curious: why post in this thread instead of emailing me and asking if I was going to talk about it, or suggest that I do?
Everybody! Get a life!
Phil, I just expected to see it. Guess I was wrong. The comment seemed the quickest way, so that’s what I did. If that’s poor form, I apologize.
And maybe you’re too young to remember, but that was not just another space event. That was seriously major stuff. Almost as important as “American Idol” is now.
Never mind – forget I was here.
I found the whole thing funny, and my girlfriend loved the line about “no scenes of diplomacy being endlessly debated around a long table.”
How did they overcome the fact that Chekov was like 6 years old when Kirk was in the Academy?
It looks like a perfectly entertaining little action sci fi movie, but I have no idea why it’s called “Star Trek” nor why they’ve appropriated the names of the characters and ship from that series for it. Except, you know, I guess it’s an effective marketing mechanism to ensure blind fanboys (both the enraged “I have to see it to hate it” crowd and the “I’ll watch anything Star Trek” crowd) will show up in droves.
Maybe I’ll see it on Netflix one of these days, but it certainly doesn’t look like anything I’d go to the theater for.
Mike C, I have that anniversary written on the whiteboard in my classroom (well, I did yesterday; welcome to this side of the date line!). Every day I have some anniversary related to science, inventions, or a birthday.
I swear, some people take things just far, far too seriously, and really need to just unplug from reality for a bit.
Next thing you know, some Blogger is going to start reviewing movies like this, pointing out how the physics and astronomy are all wrong.
Phil, I hope you are going to see the movie and give your review of the Bad Astronomy in it.
I got to see it this past weekend, and there are definite “BA” things to be reported on. It was actually funny that when I saw the stuff that was wrong, it took me out of the film for a second each time.
Seriously though… it is a good film. Unless someone is a fanatical, Canon-extremophile, peopel should like this new Trek film.
I cannot wait to see this movie! Even Fringe has a Trek tie in, with some guy claiming to be Spock in tonights episode!
Some people just need to learn to enjoy things for what they are. Reminds me of the Star Wars prequals – of course they aren’t as incredible as the originals, but you can’t really compare them. I still enjoyed them for what they were as entertaining movies set in the universe I love! This new Star Trek movie looks great also, but i’m not going to be watching it and constantly comparing it to the originals while I do.
As a young trekkie, this film is the best thing to ever happen to me, entertainment-wise.
I nearly had a heart attack when I lost my glasses yesterday..not because I couldn’t drive my car or do lifeguarding without them, but because I wouldn’t be able to clearly see the movie at the midnight showing this friday. nerd much?
Star Trek now joins the ranks of “Batman” and “Bond”. The characters and plots never change, just the actors and the gizmos.
Majel’s computer voice must be Max Headrooming in its grave.
I’ve watched and loved all flavors of Trek since day one and this nearly made me p*ss my pants. It was right on.
@Jarrad – I completely agree with you. I think it’s sad that people let perceived problems with the Star Wars prequels ruin their enjoyment of the saga as a whole. I hope Trek fans won’t make that same mistake.
I’m very much looking forward to seeing the film this weekend, I say as I’m looking at my really cool lights-and-movie-sounds USS Enterprise. =)
No matter how good it is there will be people who dislike it. But from what I have seen it looks pretty good.
I just hate it when Hollywood goes and makes a great movie out of a promising premise. Then the movie makes lots of money and attracts a lot high caliber talent and they want to do a sequel… Next thing you know they’re hiring a special effects firm so good you don’t realize they’re effects and start to swear they filmed it all live. It’s like they might want to give the old franchise new life or something.
How will we go on?
And I’ll be seeing it bright an early Saturday morning
Miek C– I wasn’t born when Shephard went into space. But I do know how important it was; however, I wasn’t aware that today was the anniversary, and I’ve been too busy to do very many in-depth posts. Also, a 48th anniversary isn’t a “special” one, so even if I had known I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it. In two years that’ll be different.
That Onion video is hilarious!
The old Kirk Vs the “Gorn” (T-Rex headed thingy) footage was real.
The first time I saw that whenthey replayed the Original Series I nearly p***d my pants too!
Nice ‘un, Onion.
@ Mike C
I agree with you about the significance of Shepherd’s flight – I didn’t know it was the anniversary. Interesting to note thanks.
But .. I also agree with the Bad Astronomer.
48 years is not a big (round number) anniversary & whilst its good to note such anniversaries there are other more contemporary and important things like astronews, bad astronomy & science in the movies and popular culture etc .. that the BA blog is focused on hence the name isn’t say “The Astronomical Anniversaries blog”.
(Which you’re always free to start and run yourself if you so wish.)
Plus there’s ways of saying things and, sorry, but you sounded a bit churlishand demanding to me. Its the BA’s blog – while we can suggets and request he covers something (& I occassionally do) we can’t tell him or order him to do so.
Having said that if the BA doesn’t note the Apollo moon landing anniversary in July I guess I’ll be a bit miffed!
Thinking Shepherd’s first flight & a couple of the continence related commenst here I’m going toend with Shepher’d immoratl line :
“We-ell, I’m a wetback now!”
- Alan Shepherd Jr, Mercury 7 and Apollo 14 astronaut, ‘The Right Stuff’, Tom Wolfe, 19??.
Aergh typos! Correction :
Thinking Shepherd’s first flight & a couple of the continence related comments here I’m going to end with Shepherd’s immortal line :
This movie looks good. I’m really looking forward to seeing it.
“I have to pee.”
I’m wondering whether to drag my wife to see this, given that she’s never actually seen TOS, but has watched quite a bit of Enterprise and Voyager.
I think she’ll enjoy it. It reintroduces the characters from the the original series.
Some local fanclubs are in overdrive bashing the movie (yes, they did not watch it yet). Someone posted something in the lines of “They desecrated Gene Roddenberry’s grave”.
Well, the same taliban trekkers posted an article once saying Enterprise was NOT Star Trek and not up to Gene’s Ideals (their words) because… the crew wear caps.
I tried to argue, showing actual pictures of NASA astronauts wearing caps (it’s great to hold the hair) and the answer? “The people in Star Trek are not astronauts”.
Another time somene asked in a mailing list: “Folks, I have a grave and serious question, very important: I need to know in details what’s the difference between a Quantum Torpedo and a Photonic Torpedo.”
I replyed: “Well, the Quantum is a blue thingy, the Photonic is a yellow thingy”. The guy almost cried. “come on, I’m serious, I need the data”.
I can spend most of an evening talking about ST and SF in general, I’m a long-time die-hard trekker, but Shatner was right, people need to get a life.
Also the Adama Maneuver blows out of the water anything Picard ever dreamed to acomplish.
Sometimes it’s amazing how far people will take something they haven’t seen. I’ll say this, the worst thing JJ did with this movie was the way he cut the trailers, as it really makes the movie look a lot more generic and silly than it turns out.
I consider myself a pretty moderate Trekkie, but I am not by any means a purist. It is well made, it feels epic, and not like an extension of one of the series, and it just works. The only issue I see with the actual reception, is that he treats it like a set up movie. The potential is there for the portrayals of these characters to shine, it just doesn’t quite reach that point in this movie. At times it overreaches.
I still, however, loved it. It is not the kind of trash we got with Micheal Bay’s shaky cam, quick zoom, generic, giant robot movie that pretended to be about Transformers, it is a very well made alternate reality movie that reintroduces characters that people who watched Star Trek both loved and probably miss, and much more than I can say about any current Star Trek film since the original holy trinity (II, III, IV), it has an upside that you can’t wait to explore.
I doubt the potential will reached with these characterizations till we get a movie that requires no exposition to set them up.
P.S. To those defending the Star Wars Prequels, I really feel I have to throw out, it’s not about whether or not you enjoyed them, or whether or not they lived up to the standards set 30 years ago, it’s just the fact that the movies themselves didn’t feel justified till the III one, and even that turned out to be quite horrid. I feel the issue was that Lucas forgot how to direct during his “Howard the Duck” layoff, and we paid the price for his “relearning how to walk” directing moments.
Also it wasn’t very encouraging to hear him call himself a “Terrible director” in Time magazine right after part II.
“48 years is not a big (round number) anniversary”
Well, you could say it’s the 0x30th anniversary…that’s a nice big round number…
Definitely looking forward to seeing the movie, though. As long as they can manage to tell a story in an interesting fashion, I don’t care about whose canon they violate.
Re: The Star Wars prequels. I think it was amazing that George Lucas could make films that made each previous film look better. When episode 1 arrived, I thought the movie had some good points but nothing spectacular and at least 1 character (we all know who he is!) that could easily have been left on the cutting room floor. Then episode 2 comes out and episode 1 doesn’t look so bad. And episode 3 makes episode 2 look better. Unfortunately, unless Mr. Lucas makes SW Ep. 3.141579, nothing will make episode 3 look any better.
My apologies to those who love the prequels, especially ep. 3, but that’s my take on them.
I’d like to remind you of a little maneuver called the Kolvoord Starburst, my friend.
I admit that Picard himself never performed it, but that’s because it’s so awesome it was outlawed in the 2260s. It’s Trek, and that’s what matters.
@ Mark Hansen – I think ultimately the key to enjoying the Star Wars prequels is to watch them for the same reason one might watch an adult movie – for the action, not the plot.
48th anniversary of Shepard’s flight, huh? Interestingly, there’s very little mention of it down here at KSC today. Guess like Phil they are waiting for the big 5-0.
There is a little bit of stirring about the upcoming 40th of Apollo 11 in July. Might be the last time the first two moonwalkers get together…no guarantees of 50 given their relatively advanced age.
Back to the subject of Phil’s post, I’m looking forward to seeing the film on the Imax tomorrow night, and from all I here it’s going to be a good one that does fiddle a bit with the Star Trek canon. Something about Kirk and Uhura being in love and all that.
Brilliantly done. The Onion is an excellent “news” source and its all the funnier because some folks don’t realize that they do parody news. Thanks for sharing.
I am a life long trekker, and thankfully I have not had to deal with any of the demented ones who refuse to go see the movie before they trash it. You know the ones, they can have whole conversations spoken entirely in Klingon.
That was a great line in the video, paraphrasing; “Many trekkers are disapointed that the Klingon language is sub-titled, allowing people who do not know Klingon to understand the conversations.”
I plan on waiting a week before seeing it. I do not want to go when every seat will be taken and I am forced to sit between a Klingon and a Romulan. Could get nasty.
“Fun, watchable’? That goes against everything Star Trek stands for.
Star Trek: evolve, or die.
@ Keith, re: “I hope Trek fans won’t make that same mistake.”
Oh, Trek fans absolutely will. Different series but same rabid fandom tactics, which might partially explain the failure of “Enterprise.”
The first time I saw ST in 1966, I was delighted that here was SciFi that tried to adhere to real science, rather than the space opera that had been previously in vogue. That it turned into a long running cultural phenomena was just icing on the cake. I’m a SciFi fan, which does not limit me to any particular interpretation of “good” SciFi.
I’m looking forward to seeing this production,,,hey, it’s SciFi and that’s all that matters.
The teasers and trailers have really put me off the new Star Trek movie, but all of the reviews I’ve read so far have been positive. Some of them overwhelmingly so. But I’ve really come to detest the hundred million dollar summer popcorn “flick”. They’re about as soulful as a Britney Spears album.
After Nemesis really let me down, I don’t want to walk out of the theatre thinking “Oops, they’ve done it again.” But I’ll wait until I actually am walking out of that theatre to judge.
The first time I saw ST IV I hurled on the person in front of me in the audience. I wonder if this movie will have the same effect on me?
I’m going to see a special, early screening at a local theater TONIGHT! I can’t wait! It’s going to be AWESOME!!! And two days before it opens nationally! Woot!
And following the rebooting of other series, aka Batman, I think it is safe to assume this is not the last Star Trek film by Abrams. Will they come up with something totally original, or try to build off of original stories, but add a twist to keep them fresh.
What could Abrams do with Khan? ST2 was the best of the TOS movies, but imagine how Abrams could flesh out that story even more. What about the Mirror Universe, or Gary 7? I think Abrams can start with the basic framework of the original stories, but really come up with something original that goes beyond the brief glimpses we saw before. Yes, I am a geek.
Did anyone catch the premiere of the (remastered) first pilot for Star Trek, “The Cage”, with Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Pike, last weekend? I’d never seen it in color, and the new (retro) effects were slick. A nice tie-in with the new movie.
@ Jess Tauber, Majel Roddenberry did, in fact, happily do the voice of the computer in the new Trek movie before she died, and there’s a cameo by Jim Doohan’s son Chris.
I’ve been a Trekker for 43 years and the biggest difference I’ve seen is that the newer “Trekkies” are special effects junkies and would probably be bored with Roddenberry’s emphasis on story, character development, and moral equations. That is, after all, the reason for the longevity of the phenomenon. I’ll wait until I see the movie to make a judgement, but Abrams hasn’t impressed me in the past.
Well, I’m sure this will settle once and for all which is the “real, true Star Trek”.
48 years is not a big (round number) anniversary
Ah, but it is…to some people it’s 30 years. Ignore them and they will throw a “hex” on you. Don’t be so decichauvinistic.
And all those PDP-11 and DEC-10 folks (if there are any left) think it’s been 60 years!
^ Ahem, I have a PDP-11 in my attic, perfectly preserved and operational. It lives with an Apple ][, a IBM XT, an Amiga and a Commodore VIC-20. They all get taken down once a year and hooked up and booted up and run for a few days.
The Altair and the Mac 128K bear mention too.
I bet they’ll complain when the sequel comes out and they have to find a new person to do the voice of the computer. The trekkies won’t be able to understand that Majel wasn’t immortal.
Daniel, it’s not that George Lucas can’t direct, it’s that he cannot WRITE that’s important in why the prequels were trash. Scorsese (or, insert another great director here) couldn’t have made those plots and ludicrous dialogue worth watching. It was in someways amusing watching some really talented actors (and one who makes K. Reeves look like an Oscar winner) trying to keep from cringing while saying his dialogue.
The reason for “Enterprise”‘s failure is that it sucked more than a black hole. Poor writing, poor casting, poor acting, poor characterization, poor plots, massive canon violations, all combined to create the suckiest of the suck.
The Onion is some of the truest news you’ll ever find.
Ray: You’re nuts. Enterprise was the best ST series.
@ darth _ borehd :
You mean worst there don’t you?
@ Ray : Spot on.
Enterprise was so not Trek that they didn’t even use ST in the title. QED.
Something about Kirk and Uhura being in love and all that.
Well I as understand it, weren’t Kirk and Uhura the first ever inter-racial couple to kiss on US (or any?) TV?
I also heard somewhere that Uhura (or is it Uhuru?) was going to quit Star Trek but was persuaded to stay on by a major African-American leader perhaps even Martin Luther King himself?
BTW. Does Uhura have a surname? Or first name? Also was ‘Uhuru/a’ also the name of an early astronomical (X-ray?)satellite and means “Freedom” or something like that in Swahili? Vague memory of reading somesuch .. I could be wrong.
@ Old Muley : (May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm)
The Onion is some of the truest news you’ll ever find.
It certainly beats Fox news or Faux as its also spelt!
Of course Fox is *meant* to be satirical .. I think! They’re just not as funny though.
Ryan : (May 6th, 2009 at 1:24 am)
“I have to pee.”
Shepherd sure did!
Interesting tocompare the US Vs Soviet programs in regard to openness there.
The Soviet’s kept even the very name of their “Cheif Designer” Korolov a closely guarded secret.
The Americans told the world their first ever spaceman … umm how to put this .. relieved himself in his spacesuit waiting for launch.
So much for NASA having any dirty laundry needing to air … as opposed to Al Shepherd post Freedom-7 flight!
Are you a turtle?
“Also was ‘Uhuru/a’ also the name of an early astronomical (X-ray?)satellite and means “Freedom” or something like that in Swahili? Vague memory of reading somesuch .. I could be wrong.”
Wikipedia says that you’re right.
If the link works you should be able to click on my name here and see.
Yes Uhuru means “Freedom” in Swahili and yes there was asatellite observatory by that name too.
Drat. Link does NOT work. Maybe its the brackets around satellite? Trying again w/o ‘em.
If this fails folks you’ll just have to type ‘Uhuru’ into the search bar yourselves .. *Sigh*
Summary – first para of the Wikipage – it *is* there!
“Uhuru was the first satellite launched specifically for the purpose of X-ray astronomy. It was also known as the X-ray Explorer Satellite, SAS-1 (for “Small Astronomy Satellite” 1, being first of the three-spacecraft SAS series), or Explorer 42. The observatory was launched on 12 December 1970 into an initial orbit of about 560 km apogee, 520 km perigee, 3 degrees inclination, with a period of 96 minutes. The mission ended in March 1973. Uhuru was a scanning mission, with a spin period of ~12 minutes. It performed the first comprehensive survey of the entire sky for X-ray sources, with a sensitivity of about 0.001 times the intensity of the Crab nebula.”
“1. … weren’t Kirk and Uhura the first ever inter-racial couple to kiss on US (or any?) TV?
2. … BTW. Does Uhura have a surname? Or first name?”
Wikipedia to the rescue again – click my name for its Uhura page :
1. “She [Uhura] is significant as one of the first major black characters on an American television series and for engaging in a then-taboo interracial kiss with James T. Kirk (William Shatner). In the 2009 prequel film, a younger Uhura will be portrayed by actress Zoë Saldana.”
2. “Uhura’s first name had never been definitively established in Star Trek canon until Abrams 2009 film, in which it was officially indicated that her name is “Nyota.” Until that time, three names had been suggested as possible first names for Uhura: “(U)Penda”, “Nyota” and “Samara”. In many appearances at Star Trek conventions, Nichols had indicated that the character is “Nyota (U)penda Uhura”. The non-canon book The Best of Trek suggests that Uhura’s first name is “Penda”, coined when a group of fanzine authors suggested it to her at an early convention. When writing the licensed tie-in, Star Trek II Biographies for Pocket Books, author William Rotsler contacted Nichelle Nichols and sought her approval for using the name “Nyota”, and this name started appearing in original Star Trek novels, such as Uhura’s Song by Janet Kagan. “Nyota” was also used as Uhura’s first name when Nichols reprised the character in the fan film Star Trek: Of Gods and Men.
That “Nyota” is the Swahili word for “star” is mentioned by William Shatner in his book, Star Trek Memories. Startrek.com uses the name Nyota on their character biography page for the Animated Series but not on the TOS biography page. According to FASA’s deprecated Star Trek RPG, Uhura’s first name is “Samara”.
In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Uhura’s name is misspelled in the credits. It is spelled “Uhuru”. This misspelling has also appeared in numerous reference works and articles on the series.
So there go ..
Incidentally dwarf planet Haumea is Wikipedia’s featured article for today.
Maybe I should change my tag to “astro-Wikipedia-quoter”?
I’m with darth_borehd: Enterprise was one of the best of the Trek series. You guys have to be kidding me–Enterprise worse than Voyager?? Even as a devoted Trek fan I gave up watching that POS. I tried, I really tried, but it just plain sucked vacuum.
“Of course Fox is *meant* to be satirical .. I think! They’re just not as funny though.”
I think Fox is the opposite of “Mars Attacks!”. That movie tried to be funny but looked like a bad attempt at being serious, and those times it got serious were almost funny. Fox, by contrast, tries to look serious but comes off as a joke, while those times it tries to be funny it comes off sounding a little too serious for humor.
“How did they overcome the fact that Chekov was like 6 years old when Kirk was in the Academy?”
I’m guessing relativistic time dilation. Whether they do this by travelling close to the speed of light without Warp Drive, or by hovering just off the event horizon of a black hole, remains to be seen.
“Plus there’s ways of saying things and, sorry, but you sounded a bit churlishand demanding to me. Its the BA’s blog – while we can suggets and request he covers something (& I occassionally do) we can’t tell him or order him to do so.”
Of course I can’t demand or order somebody to publish something on their blog. Don’t be silly.
But am I getting to be a bit churlish on this (amongst others) subject ? Yes, I guess I am. I’ve been watching it all slip slowly away over the years. And it’s slipping away faster now. I don’t think a lot of people quite realise that the huge excitement such things generated back in the 60s and 70s (even into the 80s, maybe) is what has funded EVERYTHING up till now. Absent some inspirational leadership on the subject coming along sometime soon, I see at least American contributions to both manned AND unmanned space exploration and science steadily diminishing into the future. If, back in 1970, somebody had told me that America would, by today, not have been back to the moon following Apollo, not have been to Mars (manned), and be at the point where we were not even going to have ANY operational, funded manned space capability, I would have laughed in their face. And yet here we are. Am I getting bitter about that ? You betcha. And I strongly suspect we will soon be seeing the end of things like Hubble, Phoenix, Cassini and the Mars rovers as well. Well, maybe the Chinese can pick up the slack.
Coolstar, I agree his writing was trash as well, but please keep in mind, any other competent director would have at least gotten a cast with the inherent talent already built in, to act…
Lucas himself stated his biggest flaw was he found he had no patience when filming The Phantom Menace, and was doing very short takes and digitally manipulating the scenes instead of re-shooting them.
Keep in mind I am Not saying you aren’t right. The writing was atrocious as well, but I think it’s high time we accept that Lucas only ever wanted to write and produce, and his passion has really never been in directing, and I think Irvin Kershiner’s ESB shows that.
..Star Trek film by Abrams..
Abrams? Isn’t he the guy that ‘Lost’ the plot?
@ Mike C :
I’ve been watching it all slip slowly away over the years. And it’s slipping away faster now. I don’t think a lot of people quite realise that the huge excitement such things generated back in the 60s and 70s (even into the 80s, maybe) is what has funded EVERYTHING up till now. Absent some inspirational leadership on the subject coming along sometime soon, I see at least American contributions to both manned AND unmanned space exploration and science steadily diminishing into the future. If, back in 1970, somebody had told me that America would, by today, not have been back to the moon following Apollo, not have been to Mars (manned), and be at the point where we were not even going to have ANY operational, funded manned space capability, I would have laughed in their face. And yet here we are. Am I getting bitter about that ? You betcha.
I sympatheise & I’m with you there. I too feel immensely disapppointed and saddened and frustrated by this. How can we do so much, get so far then just let it all go?
I was born too late for Apollo. NMymy firts spaceflightmemory is staying up late as alittle boy watching and waiting for thefirst ever launch of that gleamingnew spacveplane the shuttle ‘Columbia’ which was going tomake spaceflight routine and which was the future incarnate in 1980~ish. The launch was aborted – computer glitch and the shuttle, well, we know now has hardly lived up to expectations.
Somehow, unfathomably, we let the banalities and idiocies of politics and economics strangle and stomp on all the possibilities, dreams and solid marvellous achievements of the space progarm and that failure is more than a crying shame, more like a utter crime. It just dismays and appalls me.
.. I strongly suspect we will soon be seeing the end of things like Hubble, Phoenix, Cassini and the Mars rovers as well. Well, maybe the Chinese can pick up the slack.
Or Europe? I’d prefer Europe personally but you may be right – I hope China’s lunar ambitions etc .. may spur a new space race. Perhaps the US needs to be pushed by rivals into doing anything?
I think – and sure hope you are wrong – that Hubble, the rovers etc ..are just thebeginningof what willbe arenewed effort both robotically and with humans.
But this is all a bit off -topic & :
Of course I can’t demand or order somebody to publish something on their blog. Don’t be silly.
Well you started it!
Maybe it was an over-reaction from the BA & me but I think your tone sort of implied the BA was in the wrong and you were angrily insisting rather than politely asking.
If you’d just noted the Shepherd flight anniversary and perhaps asked “Hey, BA did you know .. & then maybe added I think this may be worth a specific article ..” then that’d be fine & you’d have no argument from me.
However, perhaps I’m wrong but your first post came across to me, more like shouting : “BA, YOU BASTARD! WHY HAVENT you posted on this EH?” Which is just rude and uncalled for.
Now, I know those weren’t your words and hopefully not how you intended to sound but, that’s the feeling of your tone as I sensed it. The post was also off-topic but that doesn’t matter anywhere near as much. Being a bit off-topic can be forgiven if you do it nicely. Again, sometimes its not what you say but how how you say it.
First, I have to say the Onion bit was spot on and I would have to admit to being a bit of a Trekker myself. Then again, I also thought ‘Galaxy Quest” was funny.
I have to agree that like “Bond” and “Batman”, ST has become a franchise. Kinda sad, since it makes each subsequent film that much less – what ? Innovative?
SW 1,2, and 3 were great – they made the 4, 5, and 6 look all the better by comparison. The kid in 1 was just horrid – every bit as bad as JJB. Hayden Christensen was dreadful in 2 and 3. And how many times can Lucas re-release films? I’m looking forward to “A New Hope” V. 4.02 with Han shooting first but without the mini Jabba. Another franchise.
Whew – now I fell much better.
Whoa – proof read FAIL. My falls remain unimproved.
Whenever I think of Star Trek anymore I always think of Galaxy Quest.
We shall see how much substance is in this new film, as opposed to the flash we’re being shown in the previews.
Live long and … ah, you know the rest.
Ray Says: How did they overcome the fact that Chekov was like 6 years old when Kirk was in the Academy?”
The same way they got around Spock being some 40 years older. They ignored it.
StevoRaine Says: “The old Kirk Vs the “Gorn” (T-Rex headed thingy) footage was real.”
Actually, it was an Allosaurus headed thingy.
StevoRaine Says: “I agree with the Bad Astronomer. 48 years is not a big (round number)…”
It is in base 2, base 4, base 6, base 8, base 12, base 16 and base 24.
Petrolonfire Says: “@ darth _ borehd :
Enterprise? *Shudder* You mean worst there don’t you?”
I think he meant “troll.”
Woah! A civil conversation about the new “Star Trek” movie! Who’d have thought of *that*?
You guys should see the startrek.com boards. You can’t have a doubt about Abrams or the film without some trekker there to rip you apart!
Anyone see the new “viral” Burger King website?
Now admit it, who hasn’t wanted to do that to the burger King? (Purely in self-defence, of course)
Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!