TransporterMalfunction

Here is the link to Bill Shatner's new song.

Hear William Shatner's sensational version of 'Common People' now on NME.COM

There is a more recent discussion on City on the Edge of Forever somewhere in this forum. Perhaps TM could find the other thread and merge the two threads.

273440[/snapback]

Here we go guys and gals: http://www.startrekfans.net/index.php?showtopic=10592

Having said all this he does seem to do a lot for charity.

1. Lawrence of Arabia

2. 2001

3. Ben Hur

I don't believe anyone to be an "idiot". As I find the remark to be derogatory and obtuse.

Where No Man Has Gone Before = 10

The Corbomite Maneuver = 7

Mudd's Women = 7

The Enemy Within = 9

The Man Trap = 10

The Naked Time = 8

Charlie X = 7

Balance of Terror = 8

What Are Little Girls Made Of? = 8

Dagger of the Mind = 10

Miri = 7

The Conscience of the King = 9

The Galileo Seven = 8

Court Martial = 8

The Menagerie part 1 / The Menagerie part 2 = 9 (The Cage = 10)

Shore Leave = 8

The Squire of Gothos = 7

Arena = 9

The Alternative Factor = 7

Tomorrow is Yesterday = 9

The Return of the Archons = 7

A Taste of Armageddon = 9

Space Seed = 9

This Side of Paradise = 8

The Devil in the Dark = 10

Errand of Mercy = 9

The City on the Edge of Forever = 10

Operation: Annihilate! = 9

Here are my top five:

1. Gary Mitchell

2. Dr Adams (Dagger of the Mind)

3. Khan

4. Captain Ronald Tracey (The Omega Glory)

5. Proconsul Claudius Marcus (Bread and Circuses)

The Final Frontier is a bad movie, largely because we saw the heights of the franchise in the previous film come crashing down to Earth (almost like Kirk! lol).

There are a few good moments like the attack on Nimbus, however the majority of the film seems uneasy. When I first saw the film on cinema release I found the characterisation to be the major disappointment, for example, when the ship crosses the barrier and Sybok tells Kirk he can have the ship back. Now in my opinion the Kirk of the original series would have beat the daylights out of the Vulcan then slung him in the brig before exploring the planet below for himself rather then teaming up with a chap who just stole the Enterprise!

I would say that the first two Godfather films are classics and easily in my top twenty films, but the third is very poor and suffers from some bad acting in certain quarters. I can't say I like the Goodfellas either, I much prefer a classic Jimmy Cagney or Paul Muni gangster film.

I have to say that I rather like William Castle films, especially House on Haunted Hill, and have found them to be very effective in shocks. Yes these films are b-movies but they are well done and utilise the low budget to good effect. The fact that a lot of his films had Vincent Price in as well is a big plus.

So what is your opinion of William Castle, is he a budget Hitchcock or Ed Wood's twin brother?

Here is a list of some of his most famous films:

For example, how many reality movies were filmed in the 60's? How many are filmed now? How many scary, freaky, Alfred Hitchcocktype movies were in the 60's? How many are there now?

259981[/snapback]

I completely agree. The trends of our current day media have changed and no longer affect other productions in the same way that they once did. As a fan of Hammer horror, Hitchcock and all those sorts of influences I tend to enjoy a good monster better than an actor with ridges or a different nose, while not feeling that they are necessarily parodies or one dimensional.

When I think of the episodes it is usually in production order.

From Meyer's commentary: "This is the question I am most asked about the movie, and that is Ricardo Montalban's chest, it is not a prosthetic device of any kind. He is one tough cookie, and he works out."

258268[/snapback]

Yeap I've got that too. To be honest I never thought about if they were fake in the first place.

I recommend all the episodes up to the end of season three. After that it went downhill.

Of course Star Trek made the monsters representative of issues, where as the X-Files just did it for horror.

They are all welcome.

I think it's a sign of the growing sophistication of the audiences, that's not to say that audiences of the 60's were less sophisticated but the technology was so the audiences could only go with what they were given.

258310[/snapback]

I agree to some extent, especially regarding the trends and technology, however we have seen this format applied to modern audiences with great effect in the X-Files.

One thing that I have noticed as a difference between TOS and the later shows (especially DS9 onwards) is that there is more of an element of "monster of the week", be it the M113 creature or the underlying monster in Doctor Adams. Of course TOS was not just about monsters and characters are often more rounded, just see Kodos/Karidian in The Conscience of the King as a good example. However the code of "the monster" that appeared in other sucessful shows like The Twilight Zone is no longer prevalent in modern television and is in my opinion a shame.

What are your views on this issue?

17 year old Amir Khan taking on argueablely the best Cuban boxer of all time Mario Kindelan (33) in the lightweight final and doing himself and Great Britain proud.

He is certainly one for the future and I must say that I like his dad's waistcoat:

A new series of Gerry Anderson's (Thunderbirds) classic Captain Scarlet is to be created without the strings, using 3D animation.

NewTek's LightWave 3D is a highly-versatile 3D animation and graphics program which uses Hypervoxel rendering technology for greatly simplifying the creation of extremely detailed 3D surfaces and creating volumetric effects such as liquids, fire, smoke, dust, ash, gelatin, rusted materials and clouds. LightWave 3D is also a true, real-time subdivision surface modeller with a renderer that computes massive amounts of data at floating-point accuracy to ensure colour depth, resulting in extremely high-quality imagery.

In addition, the software incorporates a depth of field filter which offers traditional depth of field control and optional iris shapes enabling the animators to mimic different camera styles and the aspect ratio and rotation angle of the camera lens, lending New Captain Scarlet a cinematic quality that is unusual to see in a CGI-animated television series.

LightWave 3D is the same animation software that Ron Thornton used on Babylon 5 and Roughnecks, and it is also currently being used to create visual effects on Star Trek - Enterprise, Battlestar Galactica, CSI Miami, JAG, NCIS and Smallville. The software has previously been used on series such as The X Files, Space: Above And Beyond, Star Trek - Deep Space Nine, Star Trek - Voyager, Dark Skies, Taken, Firefly and Buffy The Vampire Slayer as well as numerous feature films including The Fifth Element (1997), Armageddon (1998), Toy Story 2 (1998), X-Men (2000), Gladiator (2000), Monsters, Inc. (2001), Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001), Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) and Die Another Day (2002). The capabilities of LightWave 3D were most recently seen in Van Helsing (2004), The Day After Tomorrow (2004) and Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (2004) and will next be seen in Spider-Man 2 (2004).

Production of New Captain Scarlet is now taking place entirely on-site at Pinewood Studios following the construction of a new motion-capture stage there, built specifically for Gerry Anderson Productions. Previously, motion-capture recording had taken place off-site at a studio in Shepperton. The 26-episode series will be completed in mid-2005 for an autumn 2005 screening in the UK by a terrestrial broadcaster.

To be honest I rather like Enterprise, certainly a hell of a lot more than I liked DS9 or Voyager (a series I lost interest it but later caught up with most of the episodes on reruns). So from my view it is with Enterprise that B&B are finally coming good in a series that started without Gene Roddenberry's involvement.

Having said that I will admit that I would like to see T'Pol's emotions fade away quickly and the basis of the show focused on the 'main characters' (Archer, Trip, T'Pol, Reed) and in my opinion best characters of the show, turning it into more of a TOS format. Overall I have enjoyed Enterprise and found the quality of every aspect to be superior to the previous instalments.

I agree 100%, Pulaski is a much superior character. I have said this many times but I have always felt that the character of Pulaski embelished Data and his search to be more human. It is my opinion that had Pulaski stayed that she would have been a major player in the series and the films rather than the side character that Crusher was.

I like them all! Thanks AE.

I think Trek represents the hopes for the future of thousands of people, past and present. Too bad it's not available all over the world.

252748[/snapback]

 

To the best of my knowledge, Star Trek is syndicated in several nations around the world, so fret not. Those who have ears, let them hear.

 

T'Bree

 

 

255089[/snapback]

Ah but the guy said he wished Star Trek was available to everyone and even in todays world I don't think Trek has reached every single nation yet.

Well my choice would be The Wrath of Khan. Star Wars is a good action film and the quick cutting along the lines of the early b-movies is interesting. However, overall TWOK (as I will call it from now on) has a much more intelligent script with several references to classical works that do not seem contrived and nicely mirror the plot.

In TWOK (see I told you I would call it that) we do not get the 'big weapon', which does seem very Flash Gordon, but an instrument of peace and progress manipulated by those with different perspectives and ambitions. In this sense it is Star Trek that parallels modern society and seems more relevant that the action based Star Wars, which only appeals on that one level. Having said that TWOK does have its fair bit of action and in fact I happen to prefer it, but it also manages to interweave philosophical subject matters as well.

In the 1970s Fox released a film directed by George Lucas known as Star Wars. It was an action adventure movie that grossed millions and helped to convince Paramount that a Star Trek film might be a commercial success. In 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released but had more of a ponderous theme closer to 2001 than Star Wars. The film was a success but it wasn't until the second Star Trek film that any link between the style of Wars and Trek was evident.

So the question is, which of the two action films (Star Wars and The Wrath of Khan) do you prefer? Which is better not just on an action level but as a whole?