VaBeachGuy

I normally don't watch cartoon movies but since this one involved Elvis I of course checked it out lol

I was watching the remastered version of Errand of Mercy on Netflix just a minute ago and spotted an error that they should have corrected in post production or while remastering it.

I couldn't get a screen cap so I grabbed my camera and just took a pic of the TV so I could show it to you. It's right at the start of the episode while the Klingons are attacking. Look at this picture just below Spocks feet, you can see where a 2x4 (I'm assuming it's a 2x4) that makes up part of the set wasn't painted black (and should never have been seen).

The BK glasses (thanks Kevin ) and the souvenir magazine.

You're welcome I guess I should revise my list to 3 full sets lol

If you ever get a chance (and feel like it), post some pics.

I remember watching it on TV way back when. It was never really a favorite show of mine, it was ok. How was the movie? Is it worth a Netflix rental?

I don't think it is right to call it "memorbilia" while it is still in theatres.

If you go buy football cards at a card store or baseball cards, that's memorabilia even though the teams are still playing. If you go to the pro shop at the stadium to buy hats or shirts or helmets... it's memorabilia even though you're there at the game while it's being played.

Of course the word used isn't the point of the topic though, the point is to have a discussion about what "merchandise" everyone may or may not have. What you call it doesn't matter to me.

Getting close to 12,000!

What Star Trek (2009) memorabilia have you gotten so far? Like shirts, toys or whatever.

I don't normally buy stuff like that but I did get 4 full sets of the glasses that BK has plus I bought a few of their little kids meal toys.

Anyone else get anything?

I can't believe that prediction was made about Reed back in '03. That was impressive!

I've just got friends in low places...

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

Would you rather wait til something happens, like the children are abused, neglected, or worse? Then, would you give them another chance, and another, to try and get better, while the kids are still suffering?

Who determines what "abuse" and "neglect" are though? Suppose the government considers it "abuse" to make your kids attend church on Sunday and takes them away from their parents in order to prevent that "abuse"? Suppose the government considers it "neglect" to not have a Television in the childs bedroom? Again, take them away to prevent that "neglect"?

As for waiting till "something happens", yes. Wait till something happens. Who's to say that something "WILL" happen? Who's to say that a family won't be a loving family? Should people be locked up because they might rob a bank or should we wait till they actually do rob a bank?

I know it may seem wrong to say "Wait for a child to be abused to do something" but if you're talking about a situation where there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, just the thought that there is a possibility that it might be something that could happen then how on earth could anyone say "take that child away from their mother/father because there is some possibility that something MIGHT happen.

No, that's not how it should work. It doesn't "take a village" to raise a child (as some idiot politician once stated). It takes a family. If no crime is committed then the government has no business sticking their noses into the situation.

I see where you're going, but I couldn't see a day when this would ever be acceptable in our society. No matter where one stands on the abortion issue, I would hope that all would agree that killing a child who has already been born is murder.

It's actually already happened (many years ago in Nazi Germany). Of course I don't want a debate on abortion or things of that sort, that's what Kronos is for. I just don't believe that governments should be involved in this aspect of a persons life.

According to manager Chuck Binder, the movie's producer went to Carradine's hotel room and found that he had passed away

 

This article doesn't mention the fact that Carradine committed suicide by hanging himself in the closet. How ironic that the movie he was getting ready to start shooting was titled..........."Stretch"?

 

 

Very sad case. Everyone seems genuinely shocked that he killed himself. I think the last thing I saw him in was when he played Wild Bill Hickok on "Deadwood".

I don't think it's a confirmed suicide at this point. There are rumours/theories that is may be some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong based on the fact that a second (or possibly the same) rope has been mentioned tied around part of his body (I'm not gonna say which, but I think it's pretty much implied).

 

Anyway, still sad. RIP

Yeah, you'd assume that hanging would implicate suicide but there seems to be some strange circumstances in this case. At the very least it sounds like "death by misadventure" or even murder made to look like suicide.

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

I don't believe that the government has any business deciding who should be a parent and who shouldn't. The only instances where the government should be involved (in my opinion) is in the cases of child abuse. By child abuse I mean sexual abuse, physical abuse (beatings not spankings) and things like that.

The next thing you know the government will be deciding when a person can have a child, what sex it should be (abort the incorrect sex) and how many they're allowed to have (abort excess children or take them away and give them to someone else).

Maybe they will even come up with a program that will carry out post birth abortions on blind or deaf children or children with other disabilities. Think Stephen Hawking would make it past birth in that kind of society?

I just discovered that they're even making a sequal to "The Last Starfighter" for next year.

 

According to Wikipedia: "Wil Wheaton, known for his portrayal of Wesley Crusher in Star Trek: The Next Generation, had a part in the movie, but his scenes were cut. However, his name still appears in the closing credits and he can be seen as the tallest child running through the trailer park in one of the earliest scenes. Marc Alaimo, who played Gul Dukat in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, also appears as one of the assassins in human disguise sent to Earth to kill Alex Rogan by Xur (before the disguise is "detected" and erased by a nearby Last Starfighter game). Kay E. Kuter, who played Enduran, also appeared on an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation as a Cytherian, and on an episode of Deep Space Nine as the Sirah. Meg Wyllie who played the Keeper in the Star Trek pilot The Cage appears briefly as Granny Gordon."

 

I had known about Marc Alaimo (because they mentioned his name in the directors commentary on the DVD) but didn't know about Wheaton. I also knew about the Cytherian, his look is pretty distinctive and hard to miss. I hadn't realized that Granny was the Keeper though.

Every time I watch this episode I see that $50 lol

June 5, 2004 President Ronald Reagan passed away.

I would almost rather they stop making Star Trek movies than to go back and start playing with all of the old stories. If thay MUST have an alternate timeline in order to come up with new stories then come up with new stories. Don't go fooling around with what's already been done.

That's one of the things about Hollywood that annoys me today, they have no imagination anymore. They have to go back to old movies and do remakes or sequals or "reboots". Hollywoods brain power is dead.

Along these lines (all the remakes and such) I just discovered that they're even making a sequal to "The Last Starfighter" for next year.

Season: 4

Episode No: 491

Episode Name: Hard Time

Director: Alexander Singer

Teleplay By: Robert Hewitt Wolfe

Story By: Daniel Keys Moran & Lynn Barker

Original Air Date: 04-15-1996

Miles O'Brien is arrested for espionage by the Argrathi and convicted for the crime. His sentence is to spend 20 years in one of their prisons.

The way the Argrathi prison system works is by implanting memories into the minds of their prisoners that will make them believe they were incarcerated for many years when in fact they have only been in custody for only a matter of a couple of hours. Chief O'Brien must nor reintegrate back into his real life on DS9. Druring his "years" in the prison his only friend was Ee'char, his cell mate. Now that he is back on DS9 Miles continues to see Ee'char in places around DS9, though no one else can see him.

 

 

To post your own review of this episode click here.

Cast:

Avery Brooks as Captain Benjamin Sisko

Rene Auberjonois as Odo

Michael Dorn as Worf

Terry Farrell as Jadzia Dax

Cirroc Lofton as Jake Sisko

Colm Meaney as Miles O'Brien

Armin Shimerman as Quark

Alexander Siddig as Julian Bashir

Nana Visitor as Kira Nerys

Guest Cast:

Margot Rose as Rinn

Craig Wasson as Ee'char

ensign_beedrill

ddillard

starsun

Shrek

Luvin1stdegree

Staring at the screen wondering if somethings supposed to happen...

( sorry haven't figured out how to quote yet)

To quote an individual post just click the quote button at the bottom right of the specific post that you wish to quote. That will take you to your text area with the post that you want to quote already filled in.

To quote multiple posts click the "Multi Quote" button at the bottom right of each of the posts that you wish to quote: and it will change to this: .

Then scroll to the bottom of the page and click the "Add Reply" button:

You'll see that each of the posts that you clicked the multi quote button on will be part of your text area waiting for you to comment.

But based on what limited numbers we have, it seems like it was the correct business decision.

There's where I believe you're putting too much faith in them. The numbers can be manipulated to support whichever decision they'd make. I agree that the new movie probably didn't have anything to do with it, but again I wasn't saying that it did. I was simply saying that I'd be very disappointed if it did.

From a quality standpoint of the product on the screen, a case could have been made to cancel TNG and Voyager after just a couple of seasons. Enterprise was a quality show from start to finish though. As you said, it was a crappy network that was making crappy decisions and moving the series around the way they did didn't help any. If it had been a syndicated show like TNG and DS9 were I really believe that things would have been different.

But none of that is either here nor there, it was cancelled and TPTB are idiots lol.

I hadn't even thought about them having action figures until you started this post. I do have 4 full sets of the Buger King glasses though.

I admit that Neilsen ratings may no longer be relevant but unfortunately, they are the metrics by which TV shows are evaluated, for the most part. And with respect to that metric, Enterprise was a failure and therefore its expense could not be justified.

I'm not at all convinced that it was a failure, if by failure you mean that it was cancelled before 7 seasons then yes it was. But I'd be interested to see the true numbers that are on the books. Meaning, how much did the series cost to produce for the 4 seasons it was on and how much money did they make or lose when all was said and done on the series.

In those numbers I would say that DVD sales and rentals (if they make money per rental from Netflix and places like that) must be included because those are part of what Enterprise made (or lost).

Was it a question of Enterprise losing money? By "losing money" I mean if it cost $10 to produce a full season and once the season was over they only made $4 back so they were $6 in the hole. Or was it a matter of costing $10 to produce and they wanted to make $40 profit above the $10 production cost yet when all was said and done for the season they only made $25 profit?

I don't know the answers to those questions, if it was a matter of being in the red at the end of the season and actually physically losing money then I totally understand. It's a business and they aren't in the business of losing money. If it was a matter of not making enough profit then I'd put a curse on the head of the person or people that made the decision to cancel the series (if I believed in curses lol).

I suspect, though I don't know that they just weren't making as much profit as they wanted to.

There's no way Enterprise was canceled to make room for Star Trek. Orci and Kurtzman were approached about Star Trek during the production of Mission Impossible III which began in July 2005. Enterprise was officially canceled on February 2nd, 2005 with the final episodes airing on May 13th, 2005.

 

Enterprise was canceled for the simple reason that it was one of the most expensive shows on television to produce at the time and its ratings were terrible (no matter what flaws exist in the Neilsen system, all shows are graded on that system, and Enterprise fared poorly). It really is a simple decision to understand from a business perspective. Its unfortunate, but that's what it ultimate boils down to. Does Paramount think they can make money producing Star Trek?

 

Another thing that is very important to consider is that 'Star Trek' was Paramount's last chance to maintain control of the franchise. They had a certain amount of time after the cancellation of Enterprise to make a viable product with the Star Trek brand or the rights of the franchise would go to Les Moonves and CBS and I really don't think we want to see what he would have done with the franchise (i.e. direct to DVD).

There's "no way"? They were approached sometime in 2005 but that means that the idea was there before they were approached. Of course I'm not suggesting that this was the reason for the cancellation. I simply said that I'd be disappointed IF that was the reason.

I also don't accept that 'Star Trek (2009)' was their 'last chance' just as i don't accept that they 'had' to create an alternate and parallel timeline in order to attract new viewers. Those were the choices that were made, but they could have been just as successful had they made other (and some would say the right) choices. Another thing that I don't accept is everyone saying that the franchise was "dead". The way the franchise will 'die' is if the people in charge turn their backs on the very fans that made the franchise possible.

As for the Nielsen Ratings, I don't believe they're relevant any longer. They're out dated. Don't forget, it was the "ratings" that got Star Trek cancelled in 1969, but shortly after the cancellation they began tabulating the ratings differently and come to find out that under the new method Star Trek was a top rated show that never should have been cancelled.

Don't put so much faith in Hollywood and the studios. I've learned through family members that are connected to the industry a little bit about how they work out there and they do NOT deserve your faith.