The Star Trek Concordance

[gastrof]

I came in late.

If there IS a new Concordance, will it only be on CD or something, rather than printed?

 

[seigezunt]

Make sure you check out the now-closed thread in Treklit before you place an order.

 

[ToddPence]

For my own part, my 1976 copy is all the concordance I'll ever need.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I came in late.

If there IS a new Concordance, will it only be on CD or something, rather than printed?

The original idea was a downloadable version, probably .pdf, but with the realization that publication rights have reverted back to Bjo, a hardcopy version is a definite possibility.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Make sure you check out the now-closed thread in Treklit before you place an order.

Are we now going to start demanding purity tests of all future publications? Make sure that only those who follow the one true Star Trek path are allowed to have a voice? And anyone who dares to have a contrary view be barred from even participating in any capacity in what may be an otherwise important project? Because that certainly seemed to be the lasting point of that thread, once it got permanently derailed from the actual subject.

I wasn't aware it was possible to be a Trekkie and a fascist...

 

[Captain Robert April]

For my own part, my 1976 copy is all the concordance I'll ever need.

So, just TOS and TAS, hm?

 

[Mysterion]

For my own part, my 1976 copy is all the concordance I'll ever need.

So, just TOS and TAS, hm?

Works for me. Plus maybe TMP.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, then, you can feel free to ignore the other chapters.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Should this be included?

 

[Mysterion]

I wasn't aware it was possible to be a Trekkie and a fascist...

If that's the best argument you've got, then you've got no argument.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ If that's your idea of a comeback, then I consider my point to be proven.

 

[gomtuu20]

I had heard about this publication several years back but, as a rule I tend to stay away from "fan publications" when it comes to "Star Trek". Bjo Trimble's original Concordance published, I think by Ballantine (the one with the wheel-of-fortune on the cover) & the subsequent updating (BlueJay Books?) including material from the spin-offs & films is pretty much all you need. There are SO many "authorized" publications out there why anyone would be interested in one of these upstarts is beyond me, unless your extremely curious.

I've been reading the "Best Of the Best Of Trek" (Signet, 1990) which contains the "best" articles from the now-defunct magazine "Trek". At the time "Trek" was being published, all that exsisted were the original 79 episodes, the 22 animated & the first four films. Man! Did these writers put the word "conjecture" into overtime. Talk about over analyzing a TV show! They gave Sulu's first name as "Walter" & Uhura's was some Swahili word for "pearl". These were the MOST impatient fans! They just could not wait for new films or episodes, so they filled in many blanks themselves...& were WAY off base! Most of the articles in this book were written after "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" which, although not what we expected, was successful enough to guarantee a second life for "Star Trek".

They should try being a fan of "Space:1999" like me. In the 34 years since that show premiered, all we've gotten is two "behind the scenes" books, one which won't be published until the Spring. It took nearly 20 years to see a proper soundtrack release, and there have only been five new novels.

And you guys think you had it bad?

That's because Space 1999 wasn't very good.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ Details, details...

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Make sure you check out the now-closed thread in Treklit before you place an order.

Are we now going to start demanding purity tests of all future publications? Make sure that only those who follow the one true Star Trek path are allowed to have a voice? And anyone who dares to have a contrary view be barred from even participating in any capacity in what may be an otherwise important project? Because that certainly seemed to be the lasting point of that thread, once it got permanently derailed from the actual subject.

I wasn't aware it was possible to be a Trekkie and a fascist...

Oh please... people in that thread had a gripe with your intolerance of other people's opinions, not vice versa. It was your insulting and denigrating of anyone who doesn't share your opinion of Trek that caused the problem. Don't act the victim because your habitual ranting came back to bite you in the butt.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I suggest you read my blog. To boil it down to brass tacks, though, the unforgivable sin of JJ's movie is it was, not just stupid, but deliberately stupid. Since the whole reason for Star Trek's existence was to elevate filmed science fiction out of the kidvid ghetto it had been relegated to for so many years and do real, grown up stories and, above all, make people think, STAR TREK IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE DELIBERATELY STUPID! Fun, exciting, thrilling, humorous, absolutely, but never at the cost of intelligent, thoughtful storytelling. To do so risks undermining the whole thing.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic.

 

[seigezunt]

I suggest you read my blog. To boil it down to brass tacks, though, the unforgivable sin of JJ's movie is it was, not just stupid, but deliberately stupid. Since the whole reason for Star Trek's existence was to elevate filmed science fiction out of the kidvid ghetto it had been relegated to for so many years and do real, grown up stories and, above all, make people think, STAR TREK IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE DELIBERATELY STUPID! Fun, exciting, thrilling, humorous, absolutely, but never at the cost of intelligent, thoughtful storytelling. To do so risks undermining the whole thing.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic.

It's still Star Trek, dude.

And if ST is not allowed to be stupid, then I guess hefty chunks of Voyager, TAS, and the third season of TOS aren't Star Trek, either.

 

[SeerSGB]

I suggest you read my blog. To boil it down to brass tacks, though, the unforgivable sin of JJ's movie is it was, not just stupid, but deliberately stupid. Since the whole reason for Star Trek's existence was to elevate filmed science fiction out of the kidvid ghetto it had been relegated to for so many years and do real, grown up stories and, above all, make people think, STAR TREK IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE DELIBERATELY STUPID! Fun, exciting, thrilling, humorous, absolutely, but never at the cost of intelligent, thoughtful storytelling. To do so risks undermining the whole thing.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic.

It's still Star Trek, dude.

And if ST is not allowed to be stupid, then I guess hefty chunks of Voyager, TAS, and the third season of TOS aren't Star Trek, either.

Hefty chunks of TOS in general I would say I love TOS, don't get me wrong it's my fave 'Trek, but let's face it scratch the surface and it had a lot of "WTH" in it

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I suggest you read my blog.

I'll pass. I think you've made your opinions on the matter very clear.

Since the whole reason for Star Trek's existence was to elevate filmed science fiction out of the kidvid ghetto it had been relegated to for so many years and do real, grown up stories and, above all, make people think,

Really? I thought its main purpose was to entertain people and provide Gene Roddenberry (and his successors) with a paycheck.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic.

One can only hope.

 

[Mallory]

Let's try and dial back the personal stuff guys, OK?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Got the discs with the text last night. The reports of a computer virus appear to have been greatly exaggerated, but the text itself looks like someone fed the Concordance through a wood chipper; sections are scattered all over the place.

Good thing I like jigsaw puzzles...