Star Trek:Movie,TOS,and TNG!

Do you think the Star Trek movie coming out in 2012 will be good?

Yes!	39.5%	[ 374 ]
No!	11.6%	[ 110 ]
It depends!	30.5%	[ 289 ]
Were all gonna die so it doesn't matter.	18.4%	[ 174 ]
Total Votes:			[ 947 ]

[yeragh]

Kirk died in Generations. Really wouldn't make a lot of sense for him to be in the movie.

[De Kelley III]

ff wave length gg

Kirk died in Generations. Really wouldn't make a lot of sense for him to be in the movie.

Was he actually dead? I never saw that movie so I'm not sure.

Other thing is, with the red matter, his visit could have been arranged somehow.

[yeragh]

Dead and buried. That's why the movie guys didn't cast him in the movie. It went against the established canon.

[De Kelley III]

That makes sense, though my concern wasn't him being cast.

Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, and Walter Koenig weren't cast, but they helped the actors prepare for their characters.

[USS_Galactica]

ff wave length gg

Dead and buried. That's why the movie guys didn't cast him in the movie. It went against the established canon.

There was a scene written that would have had Shatner in it. Recording some hologram birthday message for original Spock, that would then be shown to the new Kirk (possibly new Spock, I am not exactly sure). But it would have to have been recorded in the short amount of time between Undiscovered Country and Generations timeline wise. But it still really wouldn't have worked, since it has still been over 15 years since Generations came out, and nearly 20 years since Undiscovered Country.

Similar to how the finale for Enterprise was just stupid using Troi and Riker, trying to pass them off as being in an episode filmed 11 years earlier. When they sure as hell don't look like they did then.

[De Kelley III]

Derp, a doodle I did earlier.

[Mutant Headcrab]

De Kelley III

You're going to have to elaborate. Star Trek broke the ice with the first interracial kiss on television, as well as other at-the-time eye-opening ideas. That episode was one of many instances that made the show controversial for it's time (the mid to late 60's)

Laugh-In utlized a good deal of overtly sexual and anti-establishment humor that ran contrary to the ideals of the time. If NBC tried to get rid of Star Trek for any reason asides from poor ratings, then why would they heavily promote a program like Laugh-In which was arguably more controversial?

Mutant Headcrab

That force still doesn't mean a damn thing, and implications in film are absolutely there, absolutely relevant to their portrayal. It's called subtext, and is a very important element of film. I was a film and theater student, and there was actually a unit on subtext in film and a huge portion on subjects in theater. It doesn't even matter if they were forced into it because the image of interracial intimacy was portrayed, and that freaked people out. I know people who were there, and you can ask anyone in the cast if it was a big deal or not. It was a big ********' deal.

Wow. Didn't need a steaming plate full of aspergers here. Kind of a moot thing to argue too since subtext can be open to interpretation by the audience. You see a world-shattering moment of cultural revolution, I see white corporate America saying kissing a black woman is only okay in a life or death scenario.

Quote:

You don't know when they changed the time stamp, do you? NBC had been trying to get rid of Star Trek for quite some time, but make it look like an "accident."

I'm sorry I don't have a perfect recall of when every episode ever aired. Let me rephrase. The first season received progressively worse ratings as the season progressed. The second season was beaten in ratings by a thirty-minute comedy show and the first thirty minutes of a prime-time movie block. The third season existed solely because a minority of NBC viewers clogged up their mailboxes with non-stop letters..

Man, you'd almost think NBC was running a *gasp* business by trying to get rid of a program that proved entirely (at the time) unprofitable.

Mutant Headcrab

No, it was not. Roddenberry specifically said they could have been gay. Also, there were vague gay jokes, like the famous back-rub scene, where a woman is rubbing Kirk's back, and he tells her to "Dig it in there, Mr. Spock!" and then him and Spock look at each other with eyebrow raises.

Watching the scene in question, I really don't see it. He honestly thought it was Spock doing the back rub. Is giving back rubs to male friends now considered homosexual behavior? Have I been in the closet all these years because I'm an amateur masseuse?

That was also a total "like Hell I'd touch your back" look that Spock gave Kirk. The catty b***h.

Mutant Headcrab

Having seen a lot of Roddenberry's material, as well as knowing people who know him, I can tell you that this was not the case with him. It's why Shatner was so damn pissed when he said that.

Well, since Roddenberry is no longer around to actually give a definitive answer, then it's a moot point isn't it? We could probably argue the semantics of "could be" until the heat death of the universe without getting anywhere.

Quote:

What does that have to do with anything? That was one of the highest rated episodes in the show, with nominations and awards.

Spock better watch his man. All it takes is a pretty face, a nice rack, and a good set o' gams to catch Kirk's eye. 4laugh

Quote:

It wasn't terrible for the franchise, but you are just bitching at fans overall, which is shitty and ******** up, because this thread is usually extremely peaceful, and you're ******** that up for people. Stupid ******** drama over a stupid ******** franchise. Who gives a ******** s**t? I'm a Trekkie, and I don't.

And yet you still respond...

Quote:

In case you must know, I'm an avid McCoy fan, but I don't masturbate to any of Kelley's material. That's probably hard to believe since I am an incredibly dedicated fan, but I deeply respect the man who played the character. If I'm sexually frustrated, I'll have sex with my boyfriend, not with McCoy in sickbay in my mind.

Well hey. Whatever floats your boat man. You just...just had to take things on a turn towards the creepy didn't you.

[De Kelley III]

Mutant Headcrab

De Kelley III

You're going to have to elaborate. Star Trek broke the ice with the first interracial kiss on television, as well as other at-the-time eye-opening ideas. That episode was one of many instances that made the show controversial for it's time (the mid to late 60's)

Laugh-In utlized a good deal of overtly sexual and anti-establishment humor that ran contrary to the ideals of the time. If NBC tried to get rid of Star Trek for any reason asides from poor ratings, then why would they heavily promote a program like Laugh-In which was arguably more controversial?

It was controversial in the same ways as Star Trek.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

That force still doesn't mean a damn thing, and implications in film are absolutely there, absolutely relevant to their portrayal. It's called subtext, and is a very important element of film. I was a film and theater student, and there was actually a unit on subtext in film and a huge portion on subjects in theater. It doesn't even matter if they were forced into it because the image of interracial intimacy was portrayed, and that freaked people out. I know people who were there, and you can ask anyone in the cast if it was a big deal or not. It was a big ********' deal.

Wow. Didn't need a steaming plate full of aspergers here. Kind of a moot thing to argue too since subtext can be open to interpretation by the audience. You see a world-shattering moment of cultural revolution, I see white corporate America saying kissing a black woman is only okay in a life or death scenario.

Excuse you, very closed-minded ableist and bigot, but nothing was "Asperger's" about that. rolleyes Subtext is not merely a matter of audience interpretation; implications are IN THE SCRIPT. You've never seen a script, have you? A television script, not Shakespeare. And a script with actor's/director's notes on it, not a blank one.

And you don't know Gene Roddenberry at all, then.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

You don't know when they changed the time stamp, do you? NBC had been trying to get rid of Star Trek for quite some time, but make it look like an "accident."

I'm sorry I don't have a perfect recall of when every episode ever aired. Let me rephrase. The first season received progressively worse ratings as the season progressed. The second season was beaten in ratings by a thirty-minute comedy show and the first thirty minutes of a prime-time movie block. The third season existed solely because a minority of NBC viewers clogged up their mailboxes with non-stop letters..

That's right. Letters from an audience large enough to cause them enough trouble to keep it on the network. That's = a pretty damn big number. Plus in-person protests.

Man, you'd almost think NBC was running a *gasp* business by trying to get rid of a program that proved entirely (at the time) unprofitable.They set that up. It's ratings dropped sharply after they moved the time stamp. It's in the data.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

No, it was not. Roddenberry specifically said they could have been gay. Also, there were vague gay jokes, like the famous back-rub scene, where a woman is rubbing Kirk's back, and he tells her to "Dig it in there, Mr. Spock!" and then him and Spock look at each other with eyebrow raises.

Watching the scene in question, I really don't see it. He honestly thought it was Spock doing the back rub. Is giving back rubs to male friends now considered homosexual behavior? Have I been in the closet all these years because I'm an amateur masseuse?

Bias to support your argument. Everyone ********' saw it. Also he saw the officer before the rub.

Mutant Headcrab

That was also a total "like Hell I'd touch your back" look that Spock gave Kirk. The catty b***h.

That's hard to interpret. Spock's expressions are not so specific. "The look" is generalized.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

Having seen a lot of Roddenberry's material, as well as knowing people who know him, I can tell you that this was not the case with him. It's why Shatner was so damn pissed when he said that.

Well, since Roddenberry is no longer around to actually give a definitive answer, then it's a moot point isn't it? We could probably argue the semantics of "could be" until the heat death of the universe without getting anywhere.

He gave a pretty definitive answer already. You seek to invalidate it.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

What does that have to do with anything? That was one of the highest rated episodes in the show, with nominations and awards.

Spock better watch his man. All it takes is a pretty face, a nice rack, and a good set o' gams to catch Kirk's eye. 4laugh

Kirk ******** women. He also makes moves on his first officer.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

It wasn't terrible for the franchise, but you are just bitching at fans overall, which is shitty and ******** up, because this thread is usually extremely peaceful, and you're ******** that up for people. Stupid ******** drama over a stupid ******** franchise. Who gives a ******** s**t? I'm a Trekkie, and I don't.

And yet you still respond...

Why not? I'll defend TOS.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

In case you must know, I'm an avid McCoy fan, but I don't masturbate to any of Kelley's material. That's probably hard to believe since I am an incredibly dedicated fan, but I deeply respect the man who played the character. If I'm sexually frustrated, I'll have sex with my boyfriend, not with McCoy in sickbay in my mind.

Well hey. Whatever floats your boat man. You just...just had to take things on a turn towards the creepy didn't you.

Welcome to Trekkies.

[Cloudcake]

ninja

[De Kelley III]

RAWR

[pure ace nonsense]

Pinto/Spork will return in the next movie. I am excite. 8D

[Vulcan Lover]

elmo the pantsless wonder

Pinto/Spork will return in the next movie. I am excite. 8D

wink

[Mayor Gravity]

De Kelley III

Derp, a doodle I did earlier.

I like it. smile

[Mutant Headcrab]

De Kelley III

It was controversial in the same ways as Star Trek.

Which precludes controversy for being a reason to cancel Star Trek.

Mutant Headcrab

Excuse you, very closed-minded ableist and bigot, but nothing was "Asperger's" about that. rolleyes Subtext is not merely a matter of audience interpretation; implications are IN THE SCRIPT. You've never seen a script, have you? A television script, not Shakespeare. And a script with actor's/director's notes on it, not a blank one.

Whelp, seeing as I'm not the one making grand and boisterous claims, mayhap you can provide a scan of the relevant pages of this mythical script in which all of your arguments are rendered true and valid.

Scripts are also subject to change, with items being added or dropped from the original script. It is certainly not something to be treated like a religious text. Sure as hell would make for a strange religion though.

Quote:

And you don't know Gene Roddenberry at all, then.

No I don't, seeing as how most of his incinerated mass was scattered in space. Kind of precludes getting to know a person.

Mutant Headcrab

That's right. Letters from an audience large enough to cause them enough trouble to keep it on the network. That's = a pretty damn big number. Plus in-person protests.

Nice nonsensical use of an equal sign.

Let us assume that the numbers involved in the letter writing campaign are accurate (and not skewed by rampant re-writing/copying of letters) and that Star Trek fans campaigning for a new season numbered somewhere in the ballpark of a hundred thousand. The number of people total who watch prime-time television number in the millions. For the sake of argument, let's pick the nice round number of five million total viewers. Even with this low-end number, the Star Trek fans would only account for about 2% of the viewing populace. Why should a major television network cave in explicitly for a vocal minority?

The fans should have considered themselves lucky that a third season was produced at all. NBC would have been well within their rights to up and drop the thing.

Quote:

They set that up. It's ratings dropped sharply after they moved the time stamp. It's in the data.

Or, you know, to make room for better programming in a prime slot then keeping up with a show that lost out to Gomer Pyle. That and the first quarter of a movie-of-the-week on CBS beat Star Trek's second season like a red-headed stepchild.

Quote:

He gave a pretty definitive answer already. You seek to invalidate it.

Words like "can" or "could" are by definition not definitive.

[De Kelley III]

Mutant Headcrab

De Kelley III

It was controversial in the same ways as Star Trek.

Which precludes controversy for being a reason to cancel Star Trek.

That was an error--it was noy controversial in the same ways as Star Trek.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

Excuse you, very closed-minded ableist and bigot, but nothing was "Asperger's" about that. rolleyes Subtext is not merely a matter of audience interpretation; implications are IN THE SCRIPT. You've never seen a script, have you? A television script, not Shakespeare. And a script with actor's/director's notes on it, not a blank one.

Whelp, seeing as I'm not the one making grand and boisterous claims, mayhap you can provide a scan of the relevant pages of this mythical script in which all of your arguments are rendered true and valid.

Actually you are, and this is not "mythical." It's common knowledge with film. It is difficult to get these scans, and you probably wouldn't understand the notes anyway unless you've studied acting. I'm not going to teacher you a full semester of acting material just so you can understand. neutral

Mutant Headcrab

Scripts are also subject to change, with items being added or dropped from the original script. It is certainly not something to be treated like a religious text. Sure as hell would make for a strange religion though.

They are, but subtext is a pretty standard part of them.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

And you don't know Gene Roddenberry at all, then.

No I don't, seeing as how most of his incinerated mass was scattered in space. Kind of precludes getting to know a person.

Please refrain from being a smart a**. There is a plethora of information about who he was and what he did.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

That's right. Letters from an audience large enough to cause them enough trouble to keep it on the network. That's = a pretty damn big number. Plus in-person protests.

Nice nonsensical use of an equal sign.

Nice nitpicking. It was a typo.

Mutant Headcrab

Let us assume that the numbers involved in the letter writing campaign are accurate (and not skewed by rampant re-writing/copying of letters) and that Star Trek fans campaigning for a new season numbered somewhere in the ballpark of a hundred thousand. The number of people total who watch prime-time television number in the millions. For the sake of argument, let's pick the nice round number of five million total viewers. Even with this low-end number, the Star Trek fans would only account for about 2% of the viewing populace. Why should a major television network cave in explicitly for a vocal minority?

First of all, today's television statistics are vastly different than they wree 45 years ago. Second, the protests were more a matter of bad publicity for the network, which they couldn't afford.

Mutant Headcrab

The fans should have considered themselves lucky that a third season was produced at all. NBC would have been well within their rights to up and drop the thing.

It wasn't luck. The network was covering their asses.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

They set that up. It's ratings dropped sharply after they moved the time stamp. It's in the data.

Or, you know, to make room for better programming in a prime slot then keeping up with a show that lost out to Gomer Pyle. That and the first quarter of a movie-of-the-week on CBS beat Star Trek's second season like a red-headed stepchild.

And you like to ignore the other factors because that's convenient for you.

Mutant Headcrab

Quote:

He gave a pretty definitive answer already. You seek to invalidate it.

Words like "can" or "could" are by definition not definitive.

Considering you don't have a quote, you're making a pretty big assumption there. In b4 you ask for the quote. He's said it on numerous occasions, and it wasn't a "no," so, definitively, it wasn't an impossibility.

By the way, you're full of s**t about defending the new movie. You're just here to b***h about Star Trek as a franchise. If was the controller of this thread, I would have banned your a long time ago. I may consult hte OP for just that. You're a disruption to a fan thread.

@ Spockinater: All it takes to ban someone is blocking them. wink