If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... - Page 18

Stoek · December 22 2011, 02:11 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

BillJ wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

He did it because he loved the script.

Yeah, apparently he came out of retirement to do it.

Because the price was right.

So far as I know Mr. Nimoy is not hurting for money. At this stage in his life he seems to only take on those projects which interest him. It is well known that he's fairly protective of Spock and prefers not to be involved with anything where he does not believe there's a genuine point to the characters appearance. This was the case with Generations where he felt that the lines being attributed to his character could just have easily been given to another actor. Which they were.

With the latest movie however his Spock was integral to the story.

To the best of my knowledge this and only this was his prime concern. If he had not liked the script and felt that there was a reason for his Spock to appear I do not believe there is any amount of money they could have offered him that he would have accepted.

Robert D. Robot · December 22 2011, 02:14 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

KingDaniel wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

He did it because he loved the script.

Indeed. He'd turned down several prior offers to reprise his role as Spock before JJ Abrams and Bad Robot came along.

I thought that was more about money than anything else (for example, his refusal to appear in Generations, which necessitated them recruiting James Doohan to reprise his role as Scotty).

(Looks like like Stoek the Halls beat me to the punch!)

IIRC, Nimoy stated that Spock's lines and actions as originally written in Generations were so generic that he felt that they really did not do the character justice or advance the character's
development in any way.... ANYBODY could have given the lines. They weren't really having Spock contribute in a Spock-like fashion, so he declined to appear. It was not a money thing.

In any interview I have seen or read about relating to Trek 2009, Nimoy has only been full of compliments for Abrams and the script and the movie.

I was lucky enough to meet J. J. Abrams in L.A. and I told him how much I loved the movie. I was another one of those 5 years old watching Trek when it premiered. I would suggest that anyone implying that I am not a real Star Trek fan has a tenuous grip on reality.

Nerys Myk · December 22 2011, 02:19 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

There is a book called 'the physics of star trek' which I recently had the pleasure of reading, and in it the author, a prominent physicist, compares the physics and science of star trek to 'real life' physics and concludes that, not only does star trek (meaning TNG, TOS and VOY mainly) get the science right, but has predicted certain scientific phenomenon that has come to pass. So I see your statement as being fallacious, unless it is referring to that once in a while error of specifics.

I read it and the other ______of Star Trek books years ago. I think it came out almost 20 years ago. Had it been written today it would include chapters about the science in the new movies. No doubt covering time travel ( as seen in the new film), black holes/wormholes, alternate realities, Many Worlds Theory and perhaps the possible ways Red Matter works.(is it a form of exotic matter?)

The ______of Star Trek books tend to pander to the Trekkie market and use Trek as a platform to introduce the topic they cover to Trekkies and others who might otherwise pass on the subject. Often they work backwards show how science was inspired Trek rather showing how Trek was inspired by science.

The "science" behind phasers was gee we need a raygun. A raygun that can do everything the script calls for.

The transporter was just a way to get the story from one point to another quickly and cheaply. Just some handwaving about molecules was mostly what TOS said about.

Dilithium, (as used in Trek) made up.

The idea that humans and alien could produce offspring also impossible. The idea that they even look remotely like humans is also absurd.

Need I go on?

I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek

Not sure that proves much of your point.

The book came out in 1995. TNG ended its run 1994.

horatio83 · December 22 2011, 02:35 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek

Thanks for the excerpt. Let's phrase it like this, dilithium is a fictional substance with an idea behind it. Even without Krauss' explanation I guess most Trek fans would be aware that the vague idea of dilithium is to moderate or control the matter-antimatter reaction.
Doesn't make it scientific but believable. Same with tieing ENT design into NASA designs, it helps the audience to imagine a design history and think that this spaceship is pretty realistic.

Yet you always gotta ask a second question, does this serve any dramatic purpose? Not at all, it merely paints the background on which the actual stories are playing. Think about City, Darmok, In the Pale Moonlight, you mainly remember what the characters have done in the foreground and not so much the background.

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 02:41 AM

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

I love how there's a Star Trek Vision.

Even though Roddenberry had no intention of creating a vision for a world of Morally Superior Supermen Who Go Out Of Their Way To Lecture About Those Backwards 20th Century Neanderthals when he pitched The Cage.

Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

More to the point, I think a future where human flaws have been eradicated is a nightmare dystopia, myself. Without anything to work against, there will be absolutley nothing to drive us.

Again, non-sense.

Just because you do not have a currency based system as incentive to grow, does not mean you shrivel up and die. You simply replace one incentive with a better one. In this case space exploration, and having anything you could possibly imagine at your fingertips. It is folly to assume money is the only worthwhile incentive available. Generationally, you would witness an increase in selflessness, due to the expansion of the human capacity to give and the knowledge that working together leads to the greatest patterns of growth (something evidenced by the human genome project, that is, the fact that working together, as opposed to 'competition' may yield the greatest results, especially in scientific advances).

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 02:45 AM

horatio83 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek

Thanks for the excerpt. Let's phrase it like this, dilithium is a fictional substance with an idea behind it. Even without Krauss' explanation I guess most Trek fans would be aware that the vague idea of dilithium is to moderate or control the matter-antimatter reaction.
Doesn't make it scientific but believable. Same with tieing ENT design into NASA designs, it helps the audience to imagine a design history and think that this spaceship is pretty realistic.

Yet you always gotta ask a second question, does this serve any dramatic purpose? Not at all, it merely paints the background on which the actual stories are playing. Think about City, Darmok, In the Pale Moonlight, you mainly remember what the characters have done in the foreground and not so much the background.

His point was that in matter/anti-matter reactors you need something (like dilithium) to regulate the flow of particles from one chamber to another. He simply filled in the gaps, but essentially credits the writers with forthright vision for coming up with basic fusion principles before scientists came up with it!

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 02:47 AM

Santa Kang wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

Santa Kang wrote:

I read it and the other ______of Star Trek books years ago. I think it came out almost 20 years ago. Had it been written today it would include chapters about the science in the new movies. No doubt covering time travel ( as seen in the new film), black holes/wormholes, alternate realities, Many Worlds Theory and perhaps the possible ways Red Matter works.(is it a form of exotic matter?)

The ______of Star Trek books tend to pander to the Trekkie market and use Trek as a platform to introduce the topic they cover to Trekkies and others who might otherwise pass on the subject. Often they work backwards show how science was inspired Trek rather showing how Trek was inspired by science.

The "science" behind phasers was gee we need a raygun. A raygun that can do everything the script calls for.

The transporter was just a way to get the story from one point to another quickly and cheaply. Just some handwaving about molecules was mostly what TOS said about.

Dilithium, (as used in Trek) made up.

The idea that humans and alien could produce offspring also impossible. The idea that they even look remotely like humans is also absurd.

Need I go on?

I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek

Not sure that proves much of your point.

The book came out in 1995. TNG ended its run 1994.

Oh, I think I confused it with the meta-physics of star trek, which came out in 1999 I believe. Anyway, I don't think physics has advanced so much since then that most of the principles (especially those of relativity) are invalid now. If it came out in 1955 I might grant you that.

Nerys Myk · December 22 2011, 02:51 AM

Not the point I was making.

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 02:54 AM

But it proves something amazing.

That when science fiction writers team up with science advisors, they're basically writing the future!

BillJ · December 22 2011, 02:55 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.

This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.

Balrog · December 22 2011, 03:00 AM

And when it comes to the brilliance of TOS, one cannot credit Roddenberry without first mentioning the true savior of that show, the other Gene - Gene Coon.

King Daniel Into Darkness · December 22 2011, 03:03 AM

Gene Rodenberry on technoabble, from "The Making of Star Trek" (and courtesy of TBBS user jayrath, because google keeps taking me to his post):

Don't explain everything. Just do it. Roddenberry pointed out that cops on detective shows didn't explain how the firing pin struck the end of a shell, causing the bullet to leave the barrel. Similarly, you don't need the captain to draw a phaser and describe how it works before using it. Or the transporter. Or the engines. GR shared anexampleof a TOS script thatcontained many pages about how the ship was to changedirection.He deleted it all and inserted, "reverse course."

Nerys Myk · December 22 2011, 03:03 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

But it proves something amazing.

That when science fiction writers team up with science advisors, they're basically writing the future!

Any proof that "dilithium" came from a science advisor? From what I've read it came from slapping di in front of lithium, because lithium ( the original fuel) was a real element with real properties and di makes it twice as good and fictional.

BillJ · December 22 2011, 03:04 AM

Jingle Balrog wrote:

And when it comes to the brilliance of TOS, one cannot credit Roddenberry without first mentioning the true savior of that show, the other Gene - Gene Coon.

Gene Coon, Matt Jefferies, Bob Justman and Sam Peeples all deserve massive amounts of credit for its success.

horatio83 · December 22 2011, 03:04 AM

BillJ wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.

This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.

Sure, to idolize The Rodd is wrong and people like Fontana, Coon and Justman deserve more credit. But I doubt anybody would deny that the vision is Roddenberry's brainchild. The actual writing and producing of episodes on the other hand has been the work of many people.
Let's phrase it like this, Roddenberry set some parameters for the franchise, it is about a future which is a bit better than our present. Even somebody like Meyer who clashed with Roddenberry returned to Roddenberryian vibes at the end of both his movies. They are woven into the basic fabric of Trek, you can't get them out.

PS: We had virtually the same idea. Now the question is, who is the telepath?

December 22 2011, 02:51 AM	#263
Nerys Myk Admiral Location: House of Kang, now with ridges	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... Not the point I was making. __________________ Nerys Myk's Midnight In Never Land A novel of Dark Fantasy @ Amazon.com

December 22 2011, 02:54 AM	#264
trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... But it proves something amazing. That when science fiction writers team up with science advisors, they're basically writing the future!

December 22 2011, 03:00 AM	#266
Balrog Commodore Location: Moria	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... And when it comes to the brilliance of TOS, one cannot credit Roddenberry without first mentioning the true savior of that show, the other Gene - Gene Coon. __________________ Anybody got a breath mint?

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US