Jack_Bauer

No one should read anything into the fact that Steve Irwin is depicted in Hell. In the South Park universe, the Mormon religion is the only one that has it right, so therefore anyone who isn't a Mormon goes to Hell.

The stingray may be a little unnecessary (especially, since no one else has appeared with the consequences of their deaths in Hell, however, it could be Steve Irwin's Halloween costume). But most of the time when a recognizable figure appears in Hell in South Park, they use a cut out of their real face, and they've animated Irwin (which if I recall, has only been done once before and that was an example of the limits of bad taste). There is also the fact that a character that was supposed to be Irwin appeared on South Park in 1999 and that character subsequently died in that episode (of course, apparently that is contradicted by this episode).

I was just reading a summary for this episode on the wikipedia and this excerpt describes what happens:

Satan investigates reports of one of his guests dressing up as the Crocodile Hunter. He finds this person (complete with a stingray sticking out of his chest) and complains that the costume is "not cool" and that it's "just too soon" to be doing this. The guest reveals himself as the real Crocodile Hunter, at which point Satan has him thrown out for not dressing up in a costume at his party.

And one last thing, am I the only one who find that fact that the Trapped in the Clsoet controversy is now referred to as one of South Park's "tamer" controversies ironic? Because they made a huge deal about it at the time.

They are only talking about a cameo role anyway, so its no big deal,

Lets hope he is the "Red Shirt" who gets wasted in the first 5mins of the film!!

No, that honour will likely go to long time Abrams collaborator Greg Grunberg (i.e. the pilot of Oceanic 815 in Lost, and currently Officer Matt Parkman on Heroes).

As for Cruise, I don't particularly like him but if he has a cameo, its not going to ruin Trek XI.

The more interesting thing about this is the fact that Paramount and Cruise broke off their relationship about a month or so back. Will Paramount want him in it? They may have to live with it because they've put so much faith in J.J. Abrams. And a Cruise cameo may generate some buzz, which Paramount is going to want (apparently, the two big films for Paramount in Summer 2008 are going to be Iron Man and Star Trek XI).

I've been watching since the beginning and I'm really liking it. It has become one of the shows that I regularly watch, or tape when I can't. Easily one of the best new shows of the season (along with Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and possibly Justice, IMO).

I love the start of hockey season. Both the Toronto Sun and Toronto Star had full preview sections on the new season. All kinds of people on campus wearing Leafs sweaters. A lot of people don't think the Leafs will have that good a year but I like the direction the team is going in.

Can't wait for the first game tonight. Go Leafs Go!

I believe she was nominated for an Emmy this year, and may have won for her new series. I don't remember which award that was

She won best actress in a comedy series.

It was okay but I fear they are running out of "List" stories to tell.

 

That one thing on his list to do was to agree with and/or help his ex wife is imo, kind-of weak by comparison.

I can see that. However, I looked up the plots of the next two episodes and:

So, it would seem that they still have some interesting stuff left on the list.

And this is my second post in mere minutes disagreeing with AE, so I'm going to go ahead an apologize right now.

There, now I can cross #47 off MY list, "Disagreed with AE in two threads within a few minutes of each other".

I think putting KR in the next film could be a mistake.

 

Jack does not act the way he does because of who his father is. He acts that way, according to CotBP, because he went slightly mad during the time of his exile alone on that island. Unless that explanation given in Black Pearl was told in jest?

It could very well have been in jest. I think it may be hard to go slightly mad in the course of three days (which is how long Jack was actually on the island before he bought passage on a run runner ship). Jack merely claimed he was there longer, probably to build up his reputation.

Voyagers Tom Paris also appears in TNG though there he is called Mick Locarno. Not sure why they changed his name for Voyager? I liked the other one better.

 

Although the same actor played both parts, Nick Locarno and Tom Paris are 2 totally different characters. There is no relationship whatsoever between them. In fact, it was his portrrayal of Locarno that got Robert Duncan McNeil the part of Tom Paris.

Well, according to Memory Alpha, the character of Paris was inspired by Locarno. When they cast the part, they couldn't find anyone who did it as well as Robert Duncan McNeill, so he read for the part and was cast. However, he could not be Locarno himself as doing so meant that Naren Shankar and Ronald D. Moore (who wore The First Duty) would have had to been paid royalties everytime the character was seen. So it was cheaper to create a new character. Memory Alpha also mentions that the writers felt that Locarno may not be as interested in redeeming himself (or was irredeemable) as the character of Tom Paris was.

I bought it and I like it. Based on what I read, it is just a modified version of the British magazine with a much wider distribution.

Well, if anything basically confirms that this rumour is not true, its that the first treatment for ST XI has just been delivered to Paramount. The circle for this movie is also very small, basically Abrams, Lindelof, Burk, Kurtzman and Orci. I'm thinking that the rumour that this rumour is just coming from some blogger is increasingly likely.

I was checking out TrekMovie.com, the former Star Trek XI blog, when I came came across some clips of Stargate SG-1's 200th episode. An amazing Trek parody as well as other science-fiction parodies.

http://trekmovie.com/2006/08/19/star-trek-...targate-parody/

Well, I was reading over at trekbbs, that this "studio source" is a actually some internet blogger trying to stir up the pot.

Fortunately, this report conflicts with basically everything Abrams, Kutrzman, and Orci have said to date. I think what we're most likely looking at is Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise (which I read somewhere).

The only thing that could potentially anger some fans would be the rearranging of the crew to the more familar TOS set up which was not in place when the show began (i.e. Sulu is physicist, Dr. Piper instead of Dr. McCoy, No Chekov, Gary Mitchell, Kelso and Dehner (wait, would she be there?). That and the uniforms will probably not match the pilot episodes.

Here's the Trek XI Blog Report on this topic.

http://stxi.blogspot.com/2006/08/paramount...ce-trek-to.html

Personally, we have no idea who's saying this. And as the blog points out, all of the writers have said they plan to respect canon while still making a movie that a non-fan can enjoy. There's even a report on the blog that Kurtzman and Orci (who will be writing Star Trek XI) are encouraging fan input for Transformers. So I don't think they have any intention of ignoring Star Trek fans.

Lightning McQueen!

Ka-Chow!

Not a prequel, most likely something between the end of TOS and Star Trek The Motion Picture (probably the most notable continuity gap in Star Trek) . There's quite a bit that can be inferred from the poster. The use of the Arrowhead emblem signals the Enterprise as it was the only ship with that insignia at the time. The yellow and blue are clearly meant to symbolize Kirk and Spock.

So a Kirk-Spock centric story on the Enterprise, set in the last two years of the five year mission. That's my call, based on the poster.

Just noticed on IMDB that Matt Damon is credited in playing Kirk in upcoming movie go here

Hardly a confirmation, the IMDB is a good site but it can't be trusted when it comes to matters like this. Stuff can make it onto the site regardless of how true it is.

Ok, Star Trek officially lives again! (IMO)

 

 

 

I concur. I like the new poster, I even set it as my background.

Actually when I go to shut down my computer, it goes to black and white, it looks pretty good like that as well.

As in clues to the new direction, definitely signals the involvement of the TOS Enterprise as that ship exclusively used that emblem in those days. The yellow and blue background definitely signal Kirk and Spock (and possibly McCoy). I think we're definitely looking at something in the canon gap between Turnabout Intruder and Star Trek the Motion Picture a la New Voyages.

Our Baltimore Clippers are now the Washington Capitals.

Off-topic I know but that one isn't true. The Washington Capitals were an expansion NHL franchise in 1974, and the Baltimore Clippers were an AHL franchise that folded in 1975/1976. Aside from the single season Baltimore Blades of the WHA, I don't believe Baltimore has ever had a professional hockey team.

Of course, you could include the Baltimore Stallions that became the latest incarnation of the Montreal Alouettes in the CFL approximately 10 years ago.

Well it is an excellent movie, a little long but still great. I've heard talk that POTC2 could eventually surpass the domestic box office record set by Titanic (just over $600 million not adjusted for inflation), which is not as shocking as it sounds since POTC2 has already made nearly half (approx 43%) of that total in only 11 days.

And as I said on the other thread, I've been good about not saying anything bad about Bryan Adams, and so far, I've managed to keep mum about Shania Twain.

 

 

Happy Canada Day to those in the land of the Stratford Theatre Festival and Fellini's restaurant. The festival rocks, as does the corn chowder and homemade pizza.

Oh, you can go off on Adams, He screwed up the Canadian National Anthem at the 1997 NHL All-Star Game in Vancouver.

And as in South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, we've apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions. lol.

Didn't Chicago Hope turn out to be all the imagination of an autistic child?

That was St. Elsewhere.

There were some other bad ideas for DS9's finale. One was apparently to let the Dominion win the war and then have Voyager bring Borg technology back with them to defeat them. Terrible.

I agree, it's an interesting idea but not one I'd have liked to have happen. I was glad to see Benny Russell brought back in season 7 but I think the way they ended the series was they way it should have been. Though I wouldn't argue if they decided to make a movie... or 2...

There are basically one key problem with a DS9 movie, IMO:

Despite the overall quality of DS9, it is probably the least recognizable series to the general public (aside from Enterprise) . Therefore, while a DS9 movie would be a huge draw for fans, it may not draw the movie-going public (who would ultimately determine its success or failure). Add to that the fact that any story would basically have to be related to the series (which again is largely unfamilar to non-fans). I'd love to see it but the fact that DS9 really flew under the public's radar (I've heard DS9 referred to as "The best show on TV that no one noticed") doesn't bode well for a movie in the future.

I have heard this idea before and all I can say is that it TERRIBLE! People can say whatever they want about Berman but I'm betting he's the one who shot this down and Star Trek is better for it. Making DS9 (and by extension all of Star Trek a dream) completely devalues Roddenberry's vision.

I can see how it is a good ending but should have only been used if DS9 was a standalone television series.

Jack Bauer was married in the first season of 24 but his wife was killed in the dying (no pun intended) minutes of the season, and he has since had a series of love interests, who typically last for one season (with the exception of Audrey Raines). President Palmer was also married in the first season (when he was running for President as a Senator) but later divorced his wife. Tony Almeida and Michelle Dessler were married off-screen between seasons 2 and 3 but their relationship ended between seasons 3 and 4. They got back together in season 4 and were married again sometime before season 5. Of course, that's definitely over now. President Logan in season 5 was married in season 5, and his wife was a main character, but its not a strong and/or healthy marriage and it is over for all intents and purposes.

President Bartlet on the West Wing is a good example of a character who was married for the show's entire run (but his wife didn't actually appear until later in the first season).

Arrested Development (I am going to miss this show and its sheer brilliance) featured two married couples in the cast of nine. Although one marriage (Tobias and Lindsey) was extremely disfunctional (and was "open" during the second season) and the other (George Sr. and Lucille) wasn't much healthier (they were constantly cheating on each other and George Sr. was in prison/in hiding for most of the show's run). The rest of the adult characters (Michael, GOB, and Buster) were single and Michael was the main character and a widower.

TUH, what makes you classify the O'Brien's marriage as "whiny and miserable?"

I'm back now, but I don't think it will be worth while to post questions since they will have to close on Friday to accomodate Trivia Wolf 359. So, take the rest of the week off and get ready.

And again, my apologies.