Last I looked, none of the Trek uniforms in any incarnation were what I'd call interesting...
I quite like the nuGalactica uniforms though.
Old Bob Fletcher Interview on TMP costumes
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
Last I looked, none of the Trek uniforms in any incarnation were what I'd call interesting...
I quite like the nuGalactica uniforms though.
Ah, yes. The "cool as a cucumber" fallacy, wherein one person presents themselves as more moderate than another, and by implication, more objective. Although many seem bewildered, even intimidated by this fact, it's possible to be passionate about something without being crazy or misguided. The divide between people like you and I probably creeps in -- in this case, at least -- from a fundamental difference in perception. Based on your comments, it seems you see the movie as just a movie; that's as far as you cast your net and everything else is folly. OK, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But my net extends further: I see this movie as a social and cultural totem; a sentinel, perhaps, for the state of popular cinema and mass media today, and a direct product of the economic mores our entertainments are now entrenched within. Some of my remarks plug directly into that ethos; or rather, wrestle against it; while others at least carry a scintilla of that thinking or the reflexive disregard for becoming enmeshed in contemporary entertainment values. On the other hand, even if I did just see STXI as a movie, let's say -- in some ways, of course, that's all it is -- then what difference would that make? This is a fan forum; if you can't wax away at a place like this, where can you?
I also take some umbrage with your sense of proportionality. You may characterize unspecified notions and ideas commented upon by those of a different inclination as "tiny elements", but that wholly depends on your proclivities; in fact, such phrasing sounds like a spurious attempt at willfully dubbing down the fires of discussion in the hope that the discussion is killed entirely. Obviously, some issues, even to the commentator, will matter more, and be regarded as bigger in the commentator's mind's eye, never mind anyone else's, than other issues; that's pretty much a no-brainer, or so it seems to me. But are all elements raised really "tiny elements"? Again, there is a not inconsequential volume of subjectivity to this matter, but I can't think you or anyone else could fully believe in such a sentiment. Then again, maybe I shouldn't try and second-guess you. All I know is that I wasn't just speaking exclusively of "tiny elements" -- and even if I was, so what? Tiny elements can excite and animate a person as much, if not more, than large elements. I don't think you have to be a fan to be entranced or disgusted by the subtleties of a thing; though some level of fanaticism may be required by definition. As Rutger Hauer once elucidated (most helpfully, I think): "film is about the small details". That's where, or rather, what, I think the essential truth and beauty of a work really is; it's where, or how, I derive considerable pleasure or consternation, in any case.
Truth be told, as the years advance (I'm twenty-six, at present), I find myself encountering increasing difficulty at separating the vast majority of comments like yours from those of philistines. Being told, in essence, to shut up, or to use your own only slightly less provocative wording, "go with the flow", is not only rude, but strikes me as terribly caustic to communication in general. Where can a dialogue go when those of a different persuasion resort to such facile homilies? Going with the flow is the last thing any thinking person should ever do; except in extreme cases, when they have judged it to be in their best interests, of course. What kind of shit is that to shovel on the screen? The reason we have discourses -- even the very basic and tenuous kind that typify those on message boards -- is, hopefully, aside from the communal feeling they engender, to challenge, shore up and spark ideas. Going with the flow might actually, pardon the pun, be the single best advice going right now; but I'm not looking for advice; and if I want it, I'll ask for it. Trading thoughts, rather than using cheap rhetoric to shut the market place down, is more my game. It may never be the only game in town, but I wish it had a bit more popularity than it apparently does.
ADDENDUM: On reflection, I apologize to you, Paul, for some of the stridency in the preceding paragraphs. I think I was coming on a bit strong to you, just now. Your more moderate position may also genuinely be the better position to take. And you may very well be a far wiser person than I. Your grievances with the movie, however, do not seem to be on the same scale, or of the same type and range, as mine. You lament incidental details in one paragraph, then make a more general statement about the film's intelligence -- "dumb as hay" -- in another. But you also say that you find "the pace and tone" as more up your street. See, I don't. Nor do I see the film as merely another incarnation. While you're right that Trek has varied in tone, STXI strikes me as an entirely different manifestation of Trek; not merely another iteration, but an explosive rebirth. There are various features of the movie that have never surfaced in Trek before, from the grungy look of the innards of starships (Main Engineering) and shuttle hulls (for example), to the bracing youthfulness of the Enterprise crew, and, perhaps concomitant with this aspect, a captain and his second-in-command virtually, and later, literally, coming to blows, and this neither being the result of a viral parasite nor depicted as anything less than a good and necessary thing. We're in different territory now. STXI is much more of a "blockbuster movie" than any previous Trek entry, and has largely been accepted en masse, and I wonder what this bodes for future endeavours, Trekkian and otherwise.
Last edited:
I love your vocabulary! However, it is clearly indicative that you spend too much time reading things other than super hero comics. With that kind of 20th century mentality you aren't going to enjoy ANY films in the 21st century... unless all the current producers are wiped out by a virulent plague and replaced by your own minions.
To be honest, I felt that the pace and tone of many of the TNG films was too slow for a Trek MOVIE. I also rather enjoyed Nemesis and I don't really get why people seem to hate it so much. I LOVE TMP but there I DO understand why many people find it slow (although it's anything but dull).
Neverthelss I can't say that NuTrek is far inferior to First Contact. They're pretty much on par. If they make the sequel dumber and more shallow but with bigger explosions then I may change my view. The performances in NuTrek were universally good (not a fan of Pegg's Scotty so far mind you). Pine and Quinto both give very nuanced performances and the film can be enjoyed for that alone.
Overall the film was nowhere near as good as Serenity but then neither were most of the movies that preceded it.
If I had to reboot Trek I think I'd want to make it darker, less cosy, riskier to be in space, make it clear that the Federation does not have unlimited resources or unlimited power, bring it a wider slection of better defined aliens instead of rubber faces in the background (B5 was better at this), and above all employ more women!
To be honest, I felt that the pace and tone of many of the TNG films was too slow for a Trek MOVIE. I also rather enjoyed Nemesis and I don't really get why people seem to hate it so much. I LOVE TMP but there I DO understand why many people find it slow (although it's anything but dull).
Neverthelss I can't say that NuTrek is far inferior to First Contact. They're pretty much on par. If they make the sequel dumber and more shallow but with bigger explosions then I may change my view. The performances in NuTrek were universally good (not a fan of Pegg's Scotty so far mind you). Pine and Quinto both give very nuanced performances and the film can be enjoyed for that alone.
Overall the film was nowhere near as good as Serenity but then neither were most of the movies that preceded it.
If I had to reboot Trek I think I'd want to make it darker, less cosy, riskier to be in space, make it clear that the Federation does not have unlimited resources or unlimited power, bring it a wider slection of better defined aliens instead of rubber faces in the background (B5 was better at this), and above all employ more women!
All dictionaries and no comic books make Jack a dull boy. Oh, and if I had pestilential powers or minion-gathering abilities, I'd only be replacing one existing set of calamities with another.
TMP + genuflection = EPIC WIN
To be perfectly honest, I have hated Nemesis since the moment I saw it. That said, I've always found much to admire in both Generations and First Contact, as cynical and crusty as I've become. For various reasons -- some of which must be attributed, as reluctant as many fans are to give them credit, to Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga -- GENS and FC just push certain buttons that INS and NEM do not. TMP, it goes without saying, or should, in my opinion, is on a totally different level. But if that does go without saying, then I'm wasting space, and squandering an opportunity to talk about GENS and FC. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the Nexus sequence in GENS, especially the part where Kirk rides out on his horse and the music swells to its full glory, is one of the most edifying and uplifting sequences in any film I've ever seen. (But maybe I haven't seen enough films). I adore that part, and like any cinema that truly moves me, it is beyond the power of words to describe. FC also has the rather chilling and enrapturing image of the Borg Queen touching Picard's cheek, which I love. While they're not necessarily great films, I think the early TNG movies get a bum rap from some fans, and have some wonderful moments that justify their existence as cinema. But I'm also the guy that says there's TMP and then there's everything else.
The performances of Pine and Quinto are not something I have really spent any prose criticizing or demeaning in any way. While I wouldn't necessarily say that either man's performance is faultless, there is little that inspires me to dislike. And I'm not the sort that is, in an online sense, all that charitable or diplomatic; if something sucks, I'll say it sucks. They're one of the better parts of the movie, for sure. And there are certain nuances from both that make their characterizations, at times, quite compelling. Their contributions certainly go a long way to fueling the film's atmosphere and making it watchable, to the extent that it is. That said, neither person really has the larger-than-life screen presence or tailor-made brilliance of either of their forebears or other Trek luminaries like Mark Lenard, Ricardo Montalban, John DeLancie, Patrick Stewart, Brock Peters, Avery Brooks, Andrew Robinson, Kate Mulgrew, Jeri Ryan, Scott Bakula, et al. I think, perhaps, they're too young, and/or they didn't have the best screenplay to work with, and/or they're not able to be truly arresting or different.
"Serenity", in my estimation, is better than the worst Star Trek films, but I don't think it's equal or better than the best. I don't know. When all is said and done, Star Trek just has stronger characters with more elemental personalities, more striking visuals and music, and a more exciting world in which to tell stories, I think. But Star Trek constantly reneges on, or ducks out of, its obligation to the strongest parts of its own nature, for one reason or another (most underpinned by $$$). If the characters are on a quest to explore and grow, so should the art work itself; but it continually limits itself, and often feels disingenuous. One of the main reasons I champion TMP -- aside from it being a darn good film, in my opinion -- is that it really elevated Trek from the mire (albeit very-entertaining-and-effective-for-its-time mire) of the rather crude and intellectually austere "western" motif that so strongly, but cleverly, defined TOS; such self-improvement being in the tradition of Trek itself, if we hold its word to be true.
STXI not only takes us back to the "western" motif of TOS, in a slightly, but barely, post-modern format, but has allowed things to slide in ways that not even TOS permitted. Obviously, the film is much, much slicker than TOS, and much slicker than anything Trek has ever been, or perhaps even tried to be, before, but slickness shouldn't be mistaken for innovation. This is where I powerfully agree with Armond White's response to the film; where some see accomplishment, I see cynical TV-like calculation (and capitulation). Slickness is a meme that people respond to, for it's both viscerally thrilling and carries with it implications that suggest much more than is really going on. Star Trek has never been so ostentatious as now. Consider the opening logo and blaring theme music that accompanies it. No other Star Trek entertainment has such overloaded force or vigour. To some, this is one of numerous examples of ST seizing the zeitgeist that's worthy of veneration; to me, it's tacky, vulgar. The new logo is barely distinguishable from that of "Transformers" (auspiciously, the new Trek film even has the same screen writers), and the music is a generic -- and loud -- hero motif, the likes of which ST has never had before (not so simplistically). STXI is not really comparable with past excesses or failures; it stakes out new ground, loudly and proudly, and with much fanfare (quite literally in this example). Some see it as a cause for celebration, but I see it as a darker turn of events. It's the first film with an old name to be made with such extreme aptitude; but it isn't an artistic aptitude; it's an aptitude for organizing things a certain way to effect certain ends. And it's worked.
"Good words. That's where ideas begin."
In many ways, I think that Trek has had its time in the sun. Before the Abrams reboot, it had managed no fewer than five television series (plus a spin-off cartoon series) and ten feature films, to say nothing of all the novels, comics, computer games, models, toys, etc. Even before the new film, its success was, is and may well remain, in this ever-changing world, without precedent. Anything beyond all of that success -- itself a huge impetus for finding ways of extending that success and making more money (think what that says about a new film with new hands, for a moment) -- is infected with avarice, and lots of it.
If STXI wasn't a cynical ploy to make money, the powers that be would have waited a few years and encouraged various ideas to be sifted around before green-lighting a new project. Instead, with a television series coming to a fairly swift end (with respect to the three that preceded it), and a fairly costly (though not quite disastrous) box office failure, it's plain as day that Paramount -- perhaps spurred on by the lucrative victories of the rebooted James Bond and Batman films ("Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins") -- was desperate for a way to bring its franchise back to prominence, and do so with maximum haste and minimum expenditure. Its solution was a costly one, but also too good to not pursue: get a hot team of youngish guys and an even younger team of actors to court fresh audiences (whilst satiating the existing fan base) and watch the $$$ roll in. Of course, in this day and age, you don't plunk down all that cash ($150 million) without hedging your bets: getting deals with big corporations, making sure the movie is shot and edited in a very snappy fashion so no one complains it's "boring" (the kiss of death for a blockbuster movie), telegraphing and explaining every moment so that the dumbest person gets it and tells their friends to go watch it, and, of course, promoting the hell out of your movie so that everyone and their dog knows what's coming and when it's coming.
If *I'm* cynical about STXI, then it's because the film is cynical about me, the viewer. Armond White is totally right in his indictments and what he implies: STXI is a sneaky product, tweaked and buffed to elicit the minimum of discontent and the maximum of credulity. And because it's so much "fun" -- indeed, as the filmmakers have stressed, was *made* to be fun -- the film has a cast-iron defence: anyone who bashes it MUST be against fun and those that generously provide the means of having fun, right? I think, more than any other, it was his review of STXI that turned the tide of fanboys against White. After he slated "The Dark Knight", many were on their guard, and truly pissed; but it was when he had the temerity to put down such a "fun" movie as STXI that people well and truly set themselves against him -- which tells me little about Armond White, but rather a lot about this movie and its hold over people.
Separate email messages. Her final comment was responding to me mentioning that some fans hated the new movie with a passion.
And yet your own lengthy comments in this thread have been aggressive?
You did a whole paragraph on the secret meanings of epaulets and a few people expressed their bewilderment. I'm sorry, but I have no idea on how to respond further. Evasive, maybe, but I have just re-read everything and I can't think of what else to add. I'm really sorry that you are unable to appreciate JJ's film.
Ironically, as an eager young fan of ST:TMP, I had a terrible time finding TOS fans who were open enough to have enjoyed that movie and wanting to discuss it. I was referred to as a "newbie" and told that I'd realise TMP was a terrible film if only I was more knowledgeable about TOS. I then spent several years chasing up everything I could, and yet still love TMP.
Your avatar also seems to indicate that you're a supporter of ST:TMP. I am one of that film's greatest fans; that movie got me into fandom in December 1979. But your comments on the 2009 movie led me to believe you were pre-disposed to dislike it, like numerous other posters of this BBS. If I'm wrong, I apologise.
I've known Bjo Trimble since January 1984, and worked alongside her at two Australian conventions, one of them just days after her own set visits to the filming of "Encounter at Farpoint" - and I watched her trying to pacify a mob of angry ST fans who hated the very idea that ST was being remade/continued as "The Next Generation". Her comments about being open to TNG in 1987 were very similar to her recent comments about being open to the 2009 movie.
I hadn't been in contact with Bjo in quite a few years and hadn't found any online views from her re VOY, ENT or JJ's new film, and I was curious. (Some people over in TrekLit had been asking what Bjo's opinions were on the movie and I decided to ask her, and made sure her views were okay to publish before she answered, or if her views were to remain private correspondence.) Knowing Bjo as I do, I suspected she would have been open about the new direction, but was curious to see if I was right.
Nothing more sinister than that.
It would have been helpful if you had indicated that from the start. "Post script" literally means "after writing" and is conventionally something that is appended to the end of a body of text in the same document. In the way that you presented the text, and the way you announced the post script, you made it seem as if it was a single e-mail; only now have you mentioned that it was a separate message entirely, prompted by separate questioning, which isn't a post script at all. Not fair on us, not fair on Bjo Trimble.
The aggression is yours. I never provoke people with leading questions and I certainly don't impugn people for making "lengthy" comments. Rather, doing that speaks to exactly what I wrote: "aggressiveness and suspicion/contempt of the intellect". We really are in a poor way if the mere length of a person's post is grounds for dismissing/mocking them.
Epaulettes have secret meanings? No, I think their basic meanings are very clear. People expressed their bewilderment? No, I think they vented their emotions. See, I'm pretty sure you know that epaulettes don't have secret meanings and I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't advancing the idea that they do. So you're still playing your infantile game. What several people did -- you included -- was to try and debase the discussion with childish insults and insinuations, caricaturing my comments and ridiculing the idea that a person would even think of discussing something as particular as epaulettes, even though this is a thread about costumes. You felt threatened by my comments; you tried to put a stop to them. Goes on all the time.
Yes, you're very sorry. I understand. But I don't necessarily believe you.
Good for you. I'm not sure what purpose that paragraph serves, however. It seems that you're trying to insinuate that I'm on a mission to change people's minds about the new movie, and that it's futile. I'm not, and it is. I learned long ago that minds cannot be changed. I was just sharing my ideas with people of a like-minded inflection. But as you've been fond of letting me know, you are one of the rare exceptions that enjoys TMP and STXI equally.
If, by "pre-disposed", you mean deeply distrusting of Paramount Pictures and the whole Star Trek brand after the big screen abortions of Insurrection and Nemesis, as well as the tepid small screen incarnation of Enterprise, and rather sickened and disgusted by the shabby photos, trailers and other pre-release material pertaining to STXI, then you're right: I was pre-disposed (to dislike it). By the same measure, I note that many were pre-disposed (to love it) by these very same things, so it takes all comers. But no-one is unbiased here, as much as they often like to think they are.
Well, in that case, Trimble is consistent, and there's nothing wrong with that. Star Trek needs its keepers of the flame, and there is probably no greater examplar than Bjo Trimble. Still, I don't personally equate an open-mindedness for one project as portable and interfaceable with others. Brains aren't USB sticks. And not all projects are created equal. For the record, I have been receptive of virtually every ST film and every TV series ever made. Maybe I've changed for the worse. Or maybe I no longer like what the powers that be are selling.
Forgive me, but people have ulterior motives -- as well as unconscious ones. I remain unconvinced that you didn't present her comments after a particular line of discussion, in an otherwise arbitrary location, in order to at least partly buoy your own feelings towards STXI in a somewhat defensive move, after getting flustered about my remarks, which you attacked and then evaded a question about. If you and Trimble found a place in your heart for the likes of TMP and STXI, more power to you. You at least accomplished your goal of running this thread completely away from costumes; I haven't seriously talked about them in half a dozen responses. Well done.
Not my goal at all.
I love the ST:TMP costumes. I thought they were wonderful and was disappointed when ST II took them in a very different direction. I fashioned one of my own TMP costumes a few weeks after seeing the film and would have loved to have bought a genuine one in the It's A Wrap! auctions. I did score a genuine Epsilon 9 raw-silk shirt with insignia, so I had to be satisfied with that.
Yep, and Bjo's comment came after writing her first bit, divided only by a short email back from me, which I could have put in the first email. Modern email correspondence is often shorter and containing more messages and clarifications, back and forth, than the old days of handwritten notes.
I assumed a P.S. could now stretch across several emailed chunks. Had I realised you would be scrutinising the content of my wording - and even my contractions - so carefully, I would have taken more care.
Of course I added it to buoy up my comments! I happened to have it on hand and it seemed interesting and relevant. I wasn't evading your question at all. I still don't understand what else to say about it. Your comments made me feel a certain way - and I told you.
Yeah baby! I know Therin agrees with this. Me too.
Yeah it's a sad sign of the times. You may like TMP but having read the latest issue of Star Trek magazine most people seem to regard it as greatly flawed, elitist, and not a success. You're smart - do the math. Would they repeat this formula or go a different way?
Further, the new Trek movie isn't aimed at a vehement TMP fan base; it's aimed at fans like Bjo who are open to variant ideas and millions of other people who were not fans before. On that basis, it succeeded. Cynical perhaps, but even so it achieved its aim: to make a shed load of money and vastly increase merchandising possiblities. To bring Star Trek as a brand back to the fore.
I think that the strongest critics of the move are frustrated by it's phenomenal success. I feel much the same about the intrusive garbage pedalled in the tabloid press but it's only there because people pay to see it, and that is how capitalism works. I think the movie franchise has now left you coughing in its dust.
Use your book smarts to write some plots for the fan-made Phase II series instead (tone down the dialogue though as most of us would need a universal translator if Rand started using two syllable words other than 'coffee' on a regular basis).
Oooh or a comic series based on the second 5-year mission - we only had one in the eighties that was sweet but rather cheesy and episodic - I'm still waiting for a more serious adult version to be produced.
I'm off to read Captain America.
OK. I will tentatively trust you, this time. Tired of arguing. I understand your frustration/disappointment, but those Epsilon 9 costumes are still pretty cool, no? I like how they have their own insignia; something scrapped from ST II onwards (although reintroduced in "Enterprise" before being scrapped again by STXI (in a pre-TOS timeline) -- not meaning to bash again, but ... ).
Alright, I'm a pedant. Your condensation makes sense. But trevanian clearly misinterpreted based on the classical definition, and I mentally did the same.
Message received.
Feel the love.
I don't blame Paramount for not going down that path; not in the least. If I was Paramount, I'd have have behaved no differently. People have spoken loud and clear, in general, about their attitude to TMP. A film like that, with a franchise like Star Trek, could never be made again. Tells me a lot about general attitudes to science, science fiction, cinema, drama, violence, spectacle and other matters.
It's a pecunious device, in essence. We agree. It has revitalized Star Trek in some ways that matter, but either ignored or kicked the corpse in other ways that really matter; and in those ways, Star Trek remains dead, if not desecrated.
That's a fair analogy. Bread and circuses. Dumb sells; intellectual things, not so much. Incidentally, tabloids are a good expression of this in another sense: note how readily they cater to astrology versus how miserly they are towards astronomy and real science. Crude, meaningless things that prick people's emotions in cheap ways are easy to peddle; things of substance and real import are a hard sell; and the ease with which the cheap stuff sells further erodes the odds of those with authority and money taking chances with the tougher stuff.
I don't know about that. It's not where my interest lies. I'm much more interested in canonical material, like TOS, TMP and the other extant iterations, to one degree or another. Also, the knob on my language box only goes one way: up.
Oooh or a comic series based on the second 5-year mission - we only had one in the eighties that was sweet but rather cheesy and episodic - I'm still waiting for a more serious adult version to be produced.
I'm off to read Captain America.
You'll find more to nourish your mind there than you will in most present-day blockbuster entertainments. Sad, but true. As for the second five-year mission? Well, there are possibilities. When I write or draw for real, I tend to take satirical routes; life is much too fucked up to take seriously.
Yikes - better stick to Xon's dialogue then.
Phase II current scripts are based on original Phase II scripts, which are pretty close to canon. The dialogue can be a bit cheesy sometimes and the wigs make you even more impressed with shatner's rug.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend World Enough and Time. It's better than many 'official' Trek productions largely due to George Takei's performance. It was nominated for an award and lost out to the Dr Who episode Blink, which is no shame as that was one of the strongest, scariest episodes of the recent run.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Thanks for clarifying. I would consider a separate message as something other than a postscript, even if that is technically not the case, which is why I usually stick something like EDIT ADDON whenever I revise a post, to allow that this wasn't all set down at the same time.
I read something attributed to Josephj Goebbels the other day, where he was describing what he did as propaganda minister, and it was along the lines of 'we don't write to express or convey a point of view, we write to achieve an effect.'
Immediately, I thought, this guy was built for the internet, because the idea is to destroy or discredit the other guy's view rather than explain your own. I'm glad that in this thread, even with a certain amount of honest dissent, nobody really jumped with both feet into the Goebbels territory. It's also why I don't post in the Abrams forum anymore, since Goebbels seems alive and well there.
No, I can tone things down. I just, generally, choose not to. Obstinate to the power of assholery.
I think I've seen a clip or two on YouTube, but this is going back a bit. I don't want to drub an earnest fan production, but I normally can't stand them -- bad acting, cheesy situations, mealy-mouthed dialogue, etc.
Well, I may seek that one out. The power of Takei compels me.
Very cogent observation.
Ick! Tell it, trevanian! I almost mentioned that in an earlier post, but I was rambling so much that I deleted it. The STXI forum is awash in contempt for critical remarks. I could see it happening a mile off. There was so much hype and furore surrounding the film before it hit that the forum's consolidation into a pure fan zone was practically guaranteed. Of course, message boards are for fans, but the pissy way any and all criticism was shot down, even in the earliest days of the film's release (i.e. when people were coming in to give their genuine opinions, not to rile others up), meant any possibility of an egalitarian atmosphere was doomed. Now, some six months on, STXI lovers post there; those of a different stripe or creed do not.
I've never found these forums to be especially pro-nuTrek. Pretty much everybody disagrees with everybody else about everything for very different reasons and the debate can get ridiculously personal as if people will die a slow and painful death if all do not agree with their views. I'm part of a select group of about 3 other people who think that Janice Rand should be elevated back up to her rightful position as principle female lead!
However, in your case, lengthy ramblings will work in your favour as we'll give up about a third of the way through after getting bored of looking up words in the dictionary. Well er... double damn a## on you!
I think a**holery might be a made up word... If it isn't I'm definitely going to use it the next time I play Scrabble.
I've never found these forums to be especially pro-nuTrek. Pretty much everybody disagrees with everybody else about everything for very different reasons and the debate can get ridiculously personal as if people will die a slow and painful death if all do not agree with their views. I'm part of a select group of about 3 other people who think that Janice Rand should be elevated back up to her rightful position as principle female lead!
In some ways, STXI is rather good at minutiae; in other ways, it sucks. Nurse Chapel at least gets a reference in the film. I hear you about Rand. To some extent, perhaps it goes back to what you said, or were kind of saying, earlier: the degree to which a person's mind is ensconced in these matters is consonant -- perhaps directly proportional -- with the degree to which they have taken these stories and worlds to heart. For instance, while I have always admired TMP, I didn't used to fret about where things were on the ship, deck sizes, diagrams, the presence of minor characters and the like. It all becomes rather maddening rather quickly.
I can see boredom, but ... looking words up in the dictionary???! Are you SURE you're talking about people on the Internet here???! Dictionaries = Knowledge; Knowledge = Effort; Effort = Bad
I think a**holery might be a made up word... If it isn't I'm definitely going to use it the next time I play Scrabble.
It isn't my first neologism and it won't be my last. In fact, it's not mine, and it ain't really a neologism, either:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assholery
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assholery
* * *
If you want a new word for Scrabble, try the following, presented to me by a learned fellow the other day: scotosis. It'll freak people out because it sounds like a horrible disease, but it allegedly means something like, "a hardening of the mind against unwanted wisdom through the repression of questions that might lead to a deeper insight into problematic readings of the Gospels." Clear as mud? The source for that definition is this page: http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2005/01/on-scotosis.html This word was supposedly coined in honour of the ecclesiastical philosopher Duns Scotus. Make of that what you will. Certainly a handy word to throw at stodgy opponents in this heady maelstrom of opinions we call cyberspace.
"You, sir, are suffering from acute scotosis of the cerebral cortex, and I recommend 500mg of the dirt on my steel-capped boots to be administered anally, five times a day, for two to six weeks, depending on the severity of your close-mindedness and chronic assholery."
I move that we start an online petition to get his quote in the Trek sequel. All you need to add is:
"Nurse Chapel, kindly administer my prescription and get this green-blooded hobgoblin out of my sickbay. What do you mean, 'but I love him?' Wise up bitch, this is the 23rd century; a woman doesn't have to date her superior to get a job."
Ooooh - look what I stumbled across on the net.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/star%20trek%20the%20motion%20picture/victorygreen/Ilia.jpg?o=32
Now I'm very interested to see what variations there are in the Star Trek Online game...
http://media.photobucket.com/image/star%20trek%20the%20motion%20picture/victorygreen/Ilia.jpg?o=32
Now I'm very interested to see what variations there are in the Star Trek Online game...
