xenexian

Definetely Kingons. I thought that it was so cool when the series began to explore the culture of this warrior race. Every time the Klingons had a major role in an episode it seemed that we learned more each time. Even the last Enterprise episode revealed another facet that was never touched. They are by far, outside of humanity, the most in depth explored species in Trek lore.

I don't mean to make waves here but the military DOES make the soldiers drones in a sense. What do you think boot camp is for? Drill instructors jobs are to break the individual down so that they do take orders with no questions asked. Yes, they do maintain their personality but in the end they are taught not to question their superiors or defy them. You still cannot compare a military person as being a drone in the true sense of the word but they are trained to act as a group, protect the group and do their job as a group. I agree that the situation is more like what is portrayed with the situation on Bajor though and not like a borg assililation attack. But there are parallels as well. We would be wise not to dismiss that thought so casually.

If Tripwanted to play real football, he would have played in the Big Ten. Pick one.

Hey, we're only human. Who's to say that those who prefer to live on Earth in the 24th century don't still enjoy a good druken night out every now and them. I doubt if human behavior is really going to change that radically as portrayed on Trek. Gene Roddenbarry wanted a future of harmony and understanding and tolerance as he depicted but he made quite a few general assumptions as to what would happen and how it happened. As for your topic header on Voyager screwing up the time line, no better example is the finale "Endgame" Imagine coming back to the Alpha quadrant with Federation technology that was still years away? Plus the idea of being able to meet oneself is still a bit dicey to me. Oh yeah, Voyager messed up the timeline big. But it's just a tv show so getting into the actual theories and consequences are not what the writers had in mind.

Perhaps you are right about the sense of humor and perhaps not. If others have noticed the same thing, how many of us could possibly be wrong? I'm sure that he is smart enough not to cause real offense to someone by tempering his words just enough to prevent anyone from seeing their true meaning. I would have prefered to hear his answers rather then seeing them typed since I then could have picked up his inflection enough to understand his feelings more. I only say this because I listen to the spoken word as part of my career and after 25 years I can easily pick up someone's inflection and get their true meaning. Also, please remember that in any interview, one can say just what the listener wants to hear and not have any real truth to it at all. Brent is not above this. I'm not trying to be argumentative but you yourself have brought up a few facts that may point to him not wanting to be Data as well. If he's doing rehersals in New York, this may be what he ultimately wants out of his career, to be doing things other then Trek, and does not want to go down in entertainment history as only Data of TNG. Then him being written out of Star Trek makes perfect sense. And as for the question, why was B4 written in the first place? There could be many reasons and not just for the reason to bring Data back. Couldn't it be possible that the character was written in anticipation of the expected reaction of Data fans like yourself? This gives you something to hold on to with no real promises given. It's also possible that the screenwriter just needed this to develop his plot line. This happens all the time. As in real life, there just comes a time when you have no choice but to accept an outcome, no matter how unpleasant it may be. The failure of this acceptance is what can cause some to worry.

Discuss Time travel? Only if you want a quick course on how to drive yourself insane. This is one of those subjects that can really alter your thinking patter. I've read many stories about time travel, both in the fictional realm and theoretical papers. If we're talking about this just for fun, which I'm sure you are, we could go for hours about how cool it would be to go back and relive personal life milestones, or points in history or even have the chance to relive your life over again, provided you keep the memories of everything you know up to today. We could also go on for hours about the dangers and implications of time travel especially if you go into the past and change history even slightly. One of the best stories about this possibility is "A Sound of Thunder", a short story by Ray Bradbury, one of science fictions most prolific writers. But just thinking about the possibilty of changing history via time travel opens up the possibility of wiping yourself out of existance and if that happens, how could you possibly be born to travel back and make the change? These time paradoxes are what really could drive you mad if you attempt to dissect them in depth. Something I would be very happy to do with you sometime over a pitcher of marguaritas. But I personally think that this is a somewhat volatile subject.

This one is tough. There are so many movies that I like that it's hard to pin down one or even two as a favorite. My list of good movies that I dodn't mind seeing over and over again (which would qualify as favorites), would have to be Independance Day, Dances With Wolves, 2001 A Space Odyssey and the sequel 2010, The Matrix, Patton, The Terminator, The Ring, The Longest Day, Midway, Gladiator, the list could just go on and on. I won't say which one is my favorite since what I like today, I may find a replacement tomorrow.

I don't know if anyone else has even seen a Brent Spiner interview or had the chance to chat with him during one of his visits to startrek.com, but I had the distinct impression that he had had enough of playing Data and even didn't take his place as a star trek icon seriously. The chat transcripts are still available over there so if you have a chance to read them, please do so. Many of his answers to some questions were almost condescending and mean spirited. Because of this attitude I perceived, I wonder if Brent didn't have a hand in his own demise from the world of star trek. Perhaps he may have even been the one to suggest an end for Data so he could go on to other things. For those not accepting the fact that he's gone, perhaps a future book will bring him back much the same way Kirk was brought back. I don't think we'll ever see him being Data again. In fact, did anyone attend the last convention in California last month? I seemed to have noticed that Brent was conspicuously absent from the proceedings. Maybe because of other commitments, maybe not. I know that what I'm typing here may seem like heresy to some but it's possible that he just didn't want to be Data anymore.

After watching last night's episode, "Elementary Dear Data", it all came back to me why I disliked the character of Dr. Pulaski. No offense to the actress Diana Muldaur, who goes all the way back to TOS, but she played Dr. Pulaski with all the snootiness of someone who believes they are always superior to everything they encounter. Why she chose to play the part that way I'll never know. She was constantly harping that humans or organic lifeforms are always superior to anything cyborg or computer related and seemed to love to rub Data's nose in that belief. I still respect her as an actress because of her own star trek roots but when she played that character it just came across as snobbish. I would not have more pleased if they got rid of her by having her assimilated by the Borg. It would have been poetic justice.

Star Trek and all it's components may take place in the future, but the series is shot in the here and now. And if you've noticed how all the networks and their executives think nowadays, I think you'll come to the conclusion nthat it won't happen anytime in the near future. Paramount executives do not have the same thought patterns as the world of star trek. They may think IDIC for the sake of keeping the franchise alive but they don't live in it or necessarily believe in it.

Worf was, by far, a deeper character on DS9 than on TNG. Plus he got to marry the hottest brunette this side of the wormhole! :devil: Tall, long legged Jadzia and tough honor bound Worf. What a combination!

Given the choice, It would have to be DS9. Why go around the universe when the universe can come to you? Of course it takes a starship to get there in the first place so once the journey is complete, you could relax and watch the interaction between the different species and not get too involved.

I stand corrected. Quebec french IS quite different. And thank you for recognizing a fact that I've always tried to make on some posts when it comes to differentiating between what it takes to film a move and a television show. Some techniques may be the same but in television, the schedules are far more hectic, have less money for everything and don't always achieve the same quality when it assumes its final form.

My answer probably won't satisfy you but I prefer the term Trekker as well. To me trekkie is a condescending term and not very adult sounding. Kind of like being called Bobby, or Tommy or Joey, even though you may be over 40 years of age. Now if you prefer to be called a trekkie thats fine with me. Kind of like having a family member using a pet nickname for you that the rest of the world doesn't know, but to me it conjurs up somebody still wearing bobby socks and under the age of 16. Plus it just doesn't have that air of legitimacy and I found that the term trekkie is most often used to make fun of somebody who likes star trek. On the local radio stations where I live, when the conversation turns to star trek, the term trekkie is usually used in a negative and deriding way. That's just some of the reasons why I prefer Trekker.

I'm almost afraid to ask. Outside of talking too loud, what transgression did you commit to get banned from a "Public" library? Take your time. I'm sure you can explain. But no I haven't read that particular title.

I'm presently into the first of three books of the DS9 millenium series, "The Fall Of Terrok Nor". So far it's a great mystery taking place during the sixth year of the tv series. Mystery holodecks, unknown passages aboard the station and Quark accused of murder with all the evidence pointing to him. So far I haven't been disapointed. Has anyone else read these books? What are your comments on them? Surely there has to be more readers out there in the Star Trek Universe. Print is not dead!

As long as it's a decent story. The problem I had with the first one is that it was too much a Disney film. In other words, it was a little too sweet. The computer effects were spectaular for its time but you could tell that the writers had a difficult challenge in writing a story to fits the efx the producers wanted to use. The film was released in 1981 and we all know the advances in special fx are light years removed from then. What sort of story could it possibly be though? The mighty MCP has been swept away so what could be written to warrant a sequel? Maybe just a re-do? I'm open to suggestions.

This is a biased answer but what I would like to see is an adaptation of the New Frontier book series by Peter David. It would be fun to have another bend the Federation rules captain again. Someone on the order of Jim Kirk who wouldn't take too much gruff from anyone attempting to forcibly control others. Captain Mackenzie would be a worthy inheriter of the captain's chair.

Genevieve Bujold was the first choice to be the captain of Vayager. She lasted just one, count it, one day. Apparently the pace and energy of shooting a television show was too much for her to handle plus she didn't have a clue how to handle the techno-babble that was required. She walked after the first day of shooting. Apparently the French can give us a male captain but can't do a thing about the female equivilent. Susie Plaxton took the character of the female Q, plus she also did a stint as one of the savants on DS9 in two episodes.

I do believe that Voyager had found their home worlds and brought them back. Happy ending. I also do believe that it was a voluntary type of thing. I remember seeing the episode but the details are a little hazy. Perhaps someone else can give you more details.

Point taken, Alterego. But if the writers were to go that route, I'm afraid that the series would become just another network sci-fi series. I just don't believe that we need an age of tv monsters anymore. But that's just my opinion.

As others who have written here stated in different ways, it comes down to personal perception. I'm in the camp of the "2 to 3 years before it hits it stride." The reasons can be as varied as the opinions but I believe that most of it is due to the fact that the writers and actors haven't fully developed the characters yet. An actor can be told that they are an ensign or commanding officer and be told what their general attitude is going to be. But to an actor, there's more to it than that. It takes awhile for them to understand their character and that involves building an entire life forming attitude and background for them to work from. When any of the star trek charaters were first written, there was no background on any of them as to how they got there or what events unfolded in their lives to create the people they must bring to life. That can only happen over time with input from the actors themselves and the writers attempting to create more character for them. Watch the first two years of any of them and you can see how stiff they are in many scenes when they are relating to each other or a happening. In the later years, all of them now now who they are supposed to be and can add more of themselves to bring it all to life. Remember too, that this is a tv show and because of that, production has to follow tv production schedules to get an episode on the air. They don't have the luxury, like a movie shoot, to spend weeks on getting just a small portion of the film just right. Many times a tv director will take the best that he can get even if it doesn't quite have the feel he may want. After four years or more, the actors have that better feel and consequently, it comes across on the airwaves as being smoother and more in character. The result is a better product, better scripts and storylines and more satisfied fans. I still say give it time.

Yeah, in a future episode, he has to parallel park or have his galactic drivers license revoked, Like Tom Paris did when he had to show he was a safe driver.

Okay, maybe it's time to get a little philosophical here. I was never really a fan of a monster of the week and even the term monster is a relative one at that. In all the series, there have been encounters with aliens that could be described as monsters. But is that because of their physical appearance or perhaps their demeanor? Example of monsters are aliens like the Horta and salt creature from TOS. In both those episodes humans were being killed not randomly but with a purpose. In those cases, survival or self preservation. We called them monsters because they looked like one. As we found out in the Horta episode, appearances were deceiving. Is an alien a monster because they scare us because of the way they look? Or are they a monster because they were just as scared of us because of the way we looked? In a TNG episode that I can't remember the title of just now, a lifeform that inhabited a sub-strata water table called humans "ugly bags of water" and "monsters" because a federation science team was going to drain the water level that would then effective kill the lifeform. They struck back and if it wasn't for Data establishing communication with them, the Federation would have been guilty of a "monsterous" act of extermination. In the same vein, Romulans, Cardasians Narsiccans and Klingons could be described as monsters because of the way they interact with other species. I would think that in most cases of contact with an alien species, either technologically advanced or pre-warp, either side could consider the other a monster depending on what scares them and how much self-preservation instiinct it calls upon. So having a designated monster of the week just doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of contacts with species that, for our lack of a proper designation for them, will be considered monsters.

Welcome. You have found the right place for all things Trek. I know you'll enjoy it here.