Star Trek Continues Meets Kickstarter Goal, Aims For Stretch Goals 165
jdavidb writes: A couple of months ago on Slashdot, I learned about Star Trek Continues, a faithful continuation of the Star Trek original series five-year mission, lovingly recreated by Vic Mignogna and a dedicated cast and crew. The original Enterprise set from Desilu has been recreated, great scripts have been written, fantastic guest stars have been enlisted, including stars from the original series and other Star Trek voyages, and the three episodes filmed so far look like they genuinely came from the era that produced the original series. Continues has now turned my children on to original series Star Trek, and we eagerly await more episodes.
Continues has two more days to go in their Kickstarter campaign. They have already raised enough money to produce two more episodes and meet their first stretch goal: creating a set for Engineering. They're also bumping up against their next stretch goal: creating a planet set so the Continues Enterprise team can visit strange new worlds and experience the tragic loss of nameless redshirts.
Continues has two more days to go in their Kickstarter campaign. They have already raised enough money to produce two more episodes and meet their first stretch goal: creating a set for Engineering. They're also bumping up against their next stretch goal: creating a planet set so the Continues Enterprise team can visit strange new worlds and experience the tragic loss of nameless redshirts.
Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to care about this. I really do. But the acting is justflat. None of them feel like they've got skin in the game. I don't know what it would take but the entire series would become a different thing if they could somehow be gotten INTO the story. Because for now they're really not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Shatner was a stage actor - that's why he acted so BIG.
And speaking of flat, ST:TNG doesn't hold up. I remember back in 1987 when it first came on and how excited I was to have a new Star Trek. Watching on Netflix now, I can't help thinking what a piece of shit it was. Yeah, there were some good episodes, but it sucked.
Voyager sucked too, Deep Space Nine was held together by Brooks but was still kinda crappy; although better than the other new Star Treks.
These new guys are doing a respectable job but I see
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can skip the first season of TNG, especially the first season. Patrick Stewart is also a stage actor, but the cast didn't have any chemistry until later on.
I'd argue you can skip much of the second season as well.
Re:Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't skip The Emissary [memory-alpha.org], Elementary, Dear Data [memory-alpha.org], The Measure of a Man [memory-alpha.org], Q Who [memory-alpha.org], Contagion [memory-alpha.org], or A Matter of Honor [memory-alpha.org].
Even the much maligned first season had "don't miss" episodes. Some you have to watch for continuity (Encounter at Farpoint [memory-alpha.org], The Neutral Zone [memory-alpha.org], Datalore [memory-alpha.org], and Skin of Evil [memory-alpha.org]), but a handful were actually decent standalone episodes (The Battle [memory-alpha.org] and 11001001 [memory-alpha.org]).
Seasons 1 and 2 had a lot of hokey moments but they also have hidden gems. Seasons 3 and 4 contain the crown jewels of TNG, after that it was kind of a gradual decline as the writers ran out of ideas, albeit with some really amazing episodes (Chain of Command [memory-alpha.org] was Season 6 and is among the best of TNG) along the way. Even most of the mediocre episodes aren't unwatchable, of course there are exceptions to the rule (Sub Rosa [memory-alpha.org], Genesis [memory-alpha.org], and Masks [memory-alpha.org] come to mind).
Re: (Score:1)
The Emissary sucked, just as all Worf centric episodes. I always skip over those.
For season one Where No One Has Gone Before, The Battle, Datalore, Too Short A Season, When The Bough Breaks, Home Soil, Conspiracy and The Neutral Zone are worth watching.
For season two, just skip the Worf, Deanna Troi and Wesley Crusher episodes The Child, The Dauphin and The Emissary. You can also safely skip that paddy crap Up The Long Ladder and the clipshow Shades Of Grey.
The rest of the seasons are fine if you avoid the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score:5, Insightful)
And speaking of flat, ST:TNG doesn't hold up. I remember back in 1987 when it first came on and how excited I was to have a new Star Trek. Watching on Netflix now, I can't help thinking what a piece of shit it was
WTF are you talking about? ST:TNG is the only Sci-Fi show from my childhood that stands the test of time. There were some hokey episodes to be sure but the underlying theme of humanity exploring the cosmos, under a semi-abundance economy where we've moved past the need for greed and work instead towards self-improvement and discovery? How can you not like that?
TNG explored themes as diverse as brinkmanship (The Defector [memory-alpha.org] and The Enemy [memory-alpha.org]), individual liberties (The Measure of a Man [memory-alpha.org]), paranoia driven by external fears (The Pegasus [memory-alpha.org] and The Drumhead [memory-alpha.org], a massively underrated episode that seems downright prescient when one contemplates current events in the post 9/11 world), terrorism (The High Ground [memory-alpha.org]), eugenics (The Masterpiece Society [memory-alpha.org]), the morality of deadly force (The Most Toys [memory-alpha.org]), veterans/PTSD (The Wounded [memory-alpha.org], Family [memory-alpha.org], and The Hunted [memory-alpha.org]), old age (Half a Life [memory-alpha.org] and Sarek [memory-alpha.org]), torture (Chain of Command [memory-alpha.org]), revenge (Reunion [memory-alpha.org]), and betrayal (Preemptive Strike [memory-alpha.org]).
Those are just the issue episodes that come to mind. TNG could also do action (several of the aforementioned, plus Power Play [memory-alpha.org], Conundrum [memory-alpha.org] and Starship Mine [memory-alpha.org]), first contact (First Contact [memory-alpha.org], Darmok [memory-alpha.org]), and even comedy (Deja Q [memory-alpha.org]).
Some of those episodes were better than others but I dare say that they're as good as anything that's on television today and were light-years ahead of their peers in the 1980s and 1990s. TNG was at its best when approached as a character and issues driven drama; in that respect I think it set a standard that is never going to be equaled in television Sci-Fi. It had more than its share of gimmicks (engineering failures used as plot devices, apparently the concepts of fail safe and even the lowly circuit breaker don't exist in the 24th Century) but on balance it stands the test of time.
It was also uplifting escapism entertainment that could still do serious drama, something I think we've lost with the current emphasis on dark violent dramas. Even the genuinely scary episodes of TNG (The Best of Both Worlds [memory-alpha.org] can still send shivers down my spine) never left you feeling depressed and melancholy. The only other show from the 1980s that I can still re-watch is Magnum PI, for a lot of the same reasons when I thi
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about?
The acting in the first season was absolutely painful. And while we're bitching, the effects were really awful, too. The CG was ugh from the very beginning (Q's net in Encounter in particular looked like something from the cutting floor of Tron, perhaps something shat out by the MCP) and the cinematography was frequently WTF, making TOS look competent by comparison.
With that said, you kind of have to watch the first two episodes if you want to comprehend TNG. So if anyone was thinking of skipping them, don'
Re: (Score:1)
That might be because there was no CG in the first season of TNG. If you couldn't tell, then you're a fucking moron and supremely unqualified to critique anything.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be because there was no CG in the first season of TNG.
Really? The web wasn't done with computer imagery? I didn't assert 3D. I know explosions and whatnot are practical through most of the series.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't computer imagery.
Fair enough, but it still looks like shit -- pretty much all but the warp effect. It's great, but it was done by ILM so, shock amazement. And they reused it throughout the series.
Re: (Score:1)
You keep looking at the paint quality of the set, then. We'll watch the play.
But production values are most of what TNG's got. The majority of the scripts are just recycled from TOS, sometimes more than once. That, of course, as well as Stewart and Spiner.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be because there was no CG in the first season of TNG.
The crystalline entity was CGI.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, when I rewatched Darmok, I realized that it was a really stupid premise for an episode and that ruined it for me completely.
What's wrong with the premise? If you're asking yourself "How can you build a civilization that communicates in metaphor?" you're asking the wrong question. The premise may be silly (though who can say exactly how an alien mind will work?) but at its core that episode is about two people from different cultures trying to come to an understanding across a language barrier.
It's also an argument for the diplomatic approach, Picard sits on the surface patiently trying to find common ground in a tense situati
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with the premise? If you're asking yourself "How can you build a civilization that communicates in metaphor?" you're asking the wrong question.
Oh, sorry, I want at least the slightest nod to science in my science fiction.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show. I'll give you a hint: Babylon 5 didn't inspire the creation of the space shuttle, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers, voice recognition, computer language translators, etc., Star Trek did.
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show"
No it really doesn't. It's as much bullshit as any other science fiction show out there. All scifi has "magic" in it so the story can be furthered. Frankly, Star Trek has an inordinately large amount of bullshit - but it's entertainment. Half the problems are solved with auxillary power, the deflector dish, a force field, or telling the engineers to redefine th
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show. I'll give you a hint: Babylon 5 didn't inspire the creation of the space shuttle, cell phones, PDAs, tablet computers, voice recognition, computer language translators, etc., Star Trek did.
And Star Trek did? [Citation needed]. Noam Chomsky was building generative grammars in 1957 to try to solve the language translation problem, which time machine did he use to watch Star Trek? Walkie-talkies were in use during WWII, and communicators were just miniature walkie-talkies (notice how onboard the original Enterprise, they still used wall-units to communicate). In fact, while the premise of the original series was summarised as "Wagon Train in space", it was really "Wagon Train on a battleship in
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, while the premise of the original series was summarised as "Wagon Train in space", it was really "Wagon Train on a battleship in space".
A wagon train is sort of like a fleet. It's responsible for its own defense; you can't call in the cavalry, because radio hasn't been invented yet. And it's invading someone else's territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek had plenty of cool ideas that have become reality, but every one of those ideas existed before Star Trek... it just made them more widely known, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it inspired all those ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
"It was also uplifting escapism entertainment that could still do serious drama, something I think we've lost with the current emphasis on dark violent dramas"
A lot of your argument is good, but fuck this statement. My biggest complaint with star trek has always been that it tends to cater to the "can't we all just get along?" bullshit far too much instead of focusing more on how human beings (and societies as we know them) really are. This is why the most critically acclaimed star trek episodes are almos
Re: (Score:2)
Are you on glue? The human interactions and reactions in BSG were leaps and bounds more realistic than anything star trek has ever done. Now, I'll concede that there are some exaggerations in the show for the sake of dramatic effect but factor in the situation, and more importantly the desperation.
Now, I like my Trek as much as the next guy, and I'm not trying to say BSG is best and Star Trek is universally awful. However, It's far easier to identify with the BSG characters, because they're closer to rea
Re: (Score:1)
However, It's far easier to identify with the BSG characters, because they're closer to real human beings than the characters in star trek ever were, or could be. Consistent and perpetual moral high ground that is ultimately always right with no grey areas?
Huh? I don't even need to quote DS9 (though it would so easy to do so) to shoot down this point. TNG Episodes: The Wounded, The First Duty, Ensign Ro, The Most Toys, Silicon Avatar, and The Pegasus. That's off the top of my head. There are plenty of TNG episodes that didn't present "consistent and perpetual moral high ground." Some of them raised tough questions (The Most Toys and Silicon Avatar, when is killing in self-defense justified?), some presented characters behaving like self-serving assholes
Re: (Score:2)
Enter the straw man. Anything that is not positive must be "emo pretention 'dark' garbage".
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, you've got TNG classified in the wrong category. It's not science fiction, it's a drama set on a spaceship. Where's the science? There's no science in it, the writers famously wrote "technobabble" as a placeholder in their scripts and later some tech expert would come up with something meaningless like "the power of the resistors is fluctuating in a quantum state." The writers were adamant that they weren't writing science fiction, in fact they looked on sci-fi authors as some sort of less
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek TNG is science fiction because it explores the social issues of living in a future with FTL space travel, alien life, teleportation, replicators, communicators, tricorders, holograms, AI, androids, insecure computers, and so on. The science in science fiction can be fictional. More notably, Trek content routinely features scientists and engineers as main characters, with exploration and scientific and social progress as core themes.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek was fine science fiction, but it was soft science fiction, and the science part of the fiction wasn't often the core of the story, nor what made the show good.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, you've got TNG classified in the wrong category. It's not science fiction, it's a drama set on a spaceship. Where's the science?
*shrug*, it's set on a space ship, in the future, where faster than light travel is a reality and most consumer goods can be created out of thin air. I think that makes it sci-fi; if you want to split hairs you could go with the downstream definition [slashdot.org], though I think that's kind of silly.
The episodes have aged badly. I tried watching a few a while back and it was just painful.
I don't have that experience at all. A few of them are downright painful (The Dauphin, Manhunt, Up the Long Ladder) but those episodes were the ones that were downright painful when they originally aired. I can marathon
Re: (Score:2)
It had more than its share of gimmicks (engineering failures used as plot devices, apparently the concepts of fail safe and even the lowly circuit breaker don't exist in the 24th Century) but on balance it stands the test of time.
What annoyed me the most is that no prisoner could ever be contained. Every. Single. Prisoner. Left. Their. Cell. Every. Fucking. Time.
Really? They don't know how to do security? Oy oy oy.
Re: (Score:2)
And at least in the first season, the choreography of the space sequences was incredibly stilted (Starfury moves onto screen right-to-left. Starfury comes to a halt in the middle of the screen. Starfury does a 180 degree turn and stops. Starfury fires cannon. Staryfury does another 180 degree turn. Starfury exits screen righ
Re: (Score:1)
They're on a floppy at the back of a drawer somewhere.
Re: Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score:4, Interesting)
Destroyed. At the end of every season, the CG models for Babylon 5 assets were deleted according to contract requirements with the Prime Time Entertainment Network who distributed the show. Probably as an asset reduction thing for financial BS in the era of protoCG-era production.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the Anonymous Coward. Being an Anonymous Coward surrenders your right to share an opinion and have anyone care about it.
Re: (Score:2)
...If only some film maker would get a kickstarter program going to make something by the masters: Heinlein, Asimov, etc .... Those guys wrote great stories and in this day and age, shouldn't be a problem bringing it to the screen.
Be careful what you wish for, Hollywood has mangled many of my favorite SF. That said, I think the state of special effects is such that Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad is now doable. I've always thought it would make a great TV series.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Star Trek isn't a very good science fiction premise.
Premise is largely irrelevant; it's more about the execution with special attention to commanding performances and excellent writing. The problem with Star Trek (and I've seen every episode of every incarnation and all the films) is that it's hit and miss with the acting and writing. I kinda like the premise, as most sci-fi is about "us" versus "them". The concept of exploration, the search for knowledge and the betterment of the human race and the galaxy as one large community is something everyone on this
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Star Trek isn't a very good science fiction premise.
Really good science fiction isn't really about the space exploration or the robots, or the time travel, or what have you. Really good science fiction uses those features to make you think about things that you might not otherwise have context to think about.
When you watch Star Trek, the original series especially, you really need to take it in with the culture of the time. It was a time when racism was normal, and women were treated as second-class citizens. Star Trek presented a scenario where men and wome
Re: (Score:2)
The original acting was pretty bad as well. Not to mention the sets, the entire premise (Really, the Captain, First Officer and Chief Doctor of a star ship beams down to $random planet in T-shirts? What Starfleet manual did that come out of?).It was the time and place that made Star Trek what is was. This was 1966. We hadn't made it to the moon but NASA was on a roll. 2001 hadn't even hit the screens.
The stories really don't age well, the characters really don't age well and we sure the hell didn't ag
Re:Now they just need intensity from the actors. (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched Doomsday Machine a few months ago, and within 5 minutes I'd forgotten about the mid 60s sets and effects. The story and acting was that good.
Re: (Score:2)
But. But. They did it again [wikipedia.org].
Captain Kirk beams over to the Constellation with Chief Medical Officer Dr. McCoy, Chief Engineer Scott and a damage control team to investigate.
I guess it's a set-setting thing. I did a lot more pot back then.
What were you smoking?
Re: (Score:3)
The original acting was pretty bad as well. Not to mention the sets, the entire premise (Really, the Captain, First Officer and Chief Doctor of a star ship beams down to $random planet in T-shirts? What Starfleet manual did that come out of?).It was the time and place that made Star Trek what is was. This was 1966. We hadn't made it to the moon but NASA was on a roll. 2001 hadn't even hit the screens.
The stories really don't age well, the characters really don't age well and we sure the hell didn't age well.
Ultimately, that's the problem. I thought the original Star Trek was great. But, it was 1966 and I was 12 years old. In reality, the "good old days" never actually existed and they weren't actually as good as we remember them.
A faithful re-creation of the original Star Trek is NOT a good idea. There simply have been too many advances in the last 40 years. The cheap sets, cheesey special effects and bad acting just aren't tolerable any more.
Re: (Score:2)
There simply have been too many advances in the last 40 years. The cheap sets, cheesey special effects and bad acting just aren't tolerable any more.
Either they're still tolerable or you haven't been watching much television lately. There are a lot of good shows, but holy shit, the majority are pretty awful. I think of ToS more as on-screen theater than some gritty, brutally-realistic drama. It's like Shakespeare. You gotta watch it with a certain perspective and malleability in order to enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not to you, but I've seen the three episodes of "Star Trek Continues" and I thought they were great. Yes, the acting the isn't always the best, but the effort faithfully created the look and feel of the original show and the stories were really good. You might not like it or think it's a good idea, but other people, like me, disagree with you, and are willing to finance the project so that it can continue. Therefore, it is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I have TRIED to watch "classics" like Citizen Kane and Casablanca, but I can't get through them because they are so terrible.
The old Kurosawa films are still great, although by modern standards, they are godawful slow. If you are the type who can get past that, they're still worth it. If not, go back to MTV.
Re: (Score:2)
If your brain did work, you'd likely have better appreciation for classic cinema, and if you still didn't like it, your criticisms would be more meaningful than "they are so terrible", therefore I conclude there is no evidence to back up your assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were being sarcastic to make a point in the first paragraph.
In the second, I realized that maybe you weren't and I feel very sad for you. What do you like? Michael Bay movies?
Re: (Score:2)
Old movies are simplistic crap with shit stories and shit acting.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched many 60's shows lately? TOS may not be great but it is far from bad when measured against other 60's shows. Batman, Bewitched, Colombo, I don't see them aging any better, but I recently watched "The Devil in the Dark" (lava monster protecting its children) and thoroughly enjoyed it. There are of course a lot of bad episodes but there are also a lot of good ones. TNG, VOY, DS9, and practically any other show is the same, there are a few gems, most of them are serviceable episodes and som
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, a television show shouldn't feature its stars performing most of the action? The thing that ticks me off more than anything else about criticism of shows like Star Trek is people who refuse to acknowledge the trade-offs that needed to be made to make a _television show_ 50 years ago. Sure, let's have Ensign Ricky and a team of redshirts we don't care about be the away team because that's more realistic, and no one is interested in watching the show.
Really? (Score:2)
Or Axanar? (Score:2)
I came across Prelude to Axanar [youtube.com] recently. It's original material, it's crowd-funded, it seems quite faithful to the traditional Trek mythos, it has a cast of well-known sci-fi actors (including several actual Trek veterans) and it has a crew with some serious credentials between them as well. If you're looking for new Trek ideas from outside JJ world, you might like to check it out. It looks like although this was made in a retrospective/documentary style, it's intended to set the scene for a major feature
Re: (Score:2)
Axanar had a good premise, but the effects were as choppy as the acting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Voyager" would have worked if the writers would have cut back severely on the booze. Kate Mulgrew is a fine actress, but the writing for her character was wildly inconsistent and the writing for the show varied between "going through the motions" and "people actually got paid for this crap?". If there was ever a by-the-numbers, we-can't-upset-the-status-quo-one-iota television show, it was "Voyager". You can go back and watch "Gilligan's Island" reruns and there is a more realistic chance that the casta
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good! (Score:4)
Out of the like, 3 of these continuation series that I took a look at a couple of years ago, this was IMHO the best one that was getting the least attention. I'm glad to hear that they've made it through their kickstarter.
Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pronounce GIF with a hard g, don't you?
The "G" in "gif" stands for "graphic" - hard 'g'.
The word "gift" is pronounced with a hard 'g'.
There are no other vowels in the word to alter pronunciation to be like 'giraffe'.
The inventor of the format can say what he wants. It's a hard 'g'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No it isn't. The whole point of naming it GIF was to play off of the peanut butter brand Jif. This was commonly known when the GIF format was introduced and the only people I ever heard pronounce it with a hard G were non-techies and kids like you who weren't even alive at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont like it? Dont watch it.
Need 24th Century Episodes (Score:1)
I thought these were of good quality and are looking forward to the next episodes. However I really do not understand the fixation with all these fan productions and the current Star Trek franchise to have to reuse the original characters. Why not new characters and stories on a similar ship.
I would really rather see 24th century fan productions with new characters, a different ship or space station. New DS9 episodes with different characters would be good to. They could even have the original DS9/Voyag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 15 comments (@5:45pm MST) ?! (Score:2)
Dang, another lost generation. STTOS is a lost art, apparently. At least amongst the /. crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
never mind (Score:1)
I swear the title ended with stretch goats and wondered if another meme had whooshed over my hat but yeah, never mind...
Re: (Score:2)
I swear the title ended with stretch goats and wondered if another meme had whooshed over my hat
The only "stretch goats" meme on Slashdot is Goatse, and that's highly not safe for work.
Rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How did they secure the rights to make these episodes? You'd think that would be the most expensive and most restrictive part.
They didn't. CBS or Paramount or whoever generally turns a blind eye to projects like these as long as they don't make any money. Other than the recent films (which arguably are only Star Trek in name), the franchise is dead. It's possible even that they're keeping an eye on how the public receives it in consideration of creating a new official television series. I think if there is to be a new series they should put it on HBO and go for broke. Good actors, good writers, the occasional full-frontal and behe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay to see those stretch goats.
There is more to SciFi than Star Trek:TOS (Score:2)
It's the geek's time-honored right to rant and whine that Big Media produces nothing but remakes and sequels. But when given the chance to show what he can do, it always Star Trek: Back To The Future.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the geek's time-honored right to rant and whine that Big Media produces nothing but remakes and sequels. But when given the chance to show what he can do, it always Star Trek: Back To The Future.
It is ironic, though it may be because the Big Media remakes and sequels are often so shitty that we geeks spend the remainder of our lives trying desperately to scrub their memories from our minds. For example, if Alien 3 and 4 had been as good as the first two I would be cool with a new one every few years until the end of time. Another issue is that people tend to think sequels and remakes come at the cost of the exclusion of new/original works. As if making Star Wars XIV somehow prevents someone else fr
Re: (Score:2)
Which it does, to an extent.
At one end there's a limited amount of production capacity - studios, render farms, key grips & best boys (whatever the hell they are).
At the other the public have a limited disposable income to spend on tickets, figurines and stuff.
Something has to give.
Re: (Score:2)
Steadycam (Score:2)
Please, for the love of Pete's sake, either get a steady cam or don't attempt the "lead the actors down the hall with the camera while they're talking" shot. There was one shot so bad that it totally pulled me out of the scene. I think the camera guy might have stumbled or ran into someone. It was that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Continues does a great job, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He has the same gripe with modern sci-fi, too dark and gritty.
Problem with the beautiful future of Trek is that there's no real evidence that we're becoming better people. And exploiting space would permit us to continue an extractive existence.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what the first algae said when it washed up on a stony beach. And so it was, until some algal cell with a shiny dome particularly free from cilia ascended to the very top of a stony outcropping.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. Exploiting space is what permitted Trek folk to become better people.
No, I have it the way I have it. Star Trek is fiction. And I say that there's no reason to believe that would happen. Exploiting space will permit us to not have to become better people, because we'll continue to have resources to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, you need to have resources to exploit.
Wrongo. You clearly don't understand that the world is full of cyclical systems which self-perpetuate. Look at the history of earth, it went through these different stages and then settled into a series of cycles which were self-regulating. And they might still be, but we've perturbed the cycle to an extent that might disturb this condition of relative stasis. But that's not at all necessary. This is what organic gardening is all about. It's not enough to put some things on a list and only grow plants with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we are in the future now and we know it to suck.