Lady Britannia

From a visual perspective, I got sick of looking at darker tones of yellow, green, brown, and all the black shadows. We get it... this is the darkest Trek series from a psychological perspective. Don't overdo it.

It was necessary to show the audience a different aesthetic from the "clean" Starfleet look that they had grown accustomed to during seven seasons of TNG. That's why the Cardassian designs of the station's exterior and interior were dark and harsher and more "industrial" looking.

What a dumb name.......

Polynesians might think "Neptune" is a dumb name.

Please, if there is a logical explanation to all this tell me so that i can be at rest, because it really bugs me. if i have done it wrong, tell me, anything! just someone explain some of it to me!!!

The effect of the sunlight on the camera.

It's ugly, but realistically, there's only so much one can do with the traditional Starfleet vessel design.

They should both act like mature human beings and just remain quiet.

The thread about Kai Opaka got me to thinking about the planet she got stuck on. How would you feel if something happened on earth where if we were to die we would be revived without any fear of death?

It would be a nightmare.

There is a debate going on as to wether The Theme song to Enterprise is inoproprate for a Star Trek Series. But did you know that Gene Roddenberry wrote Lyrics for the TOS Theme?

 

this fact I read in a book by Gene L Coon a Producer on TOS and TNG.

I did a web serch and This is what I found. ENJOY

 

Beyond

The rim of the star-light

My love

Is wand'ring in star-flight

I know

He'll find in star-clustered reaches

Love,

Strange love a star woman teaches.

I know

His journey ends never

His star trek

Will go on forever.

But tell him

While he wanders his starry sea

Remember, remember me.

 

 

 

you can find the story behind this HERE

Awful.

Deanna Troi was like a curse on TNG. One of the worst ever Star Trek characters.

Now, as if VOY wasn't bad enough, what do they do?

They bring Deanna Troi into it.

No wonder Star Trek declined so badly.

Hey, does anyone know what a cardassian ship's prefix is? like how Starfleet has USS.

Probably "C.U.V" or "Cardassian Union Vessel"

All the right moves so far.

The new bridge in particular looks excellent.

Abrams has correctly comprehended that Star Trek needed a revamp, particularly in production design.

A clean break from Bermanesque Star Trek visuals.

Awful design. Truly hideous.

Damar was a perfect example of how the writing team on DS9 were able to introduce recurring characters and develop them into complex and multi-layered personalities.

Something that was sorely lacking on VOY and ENT.

Were you happy with the direction DS9 took?, Was the Dominion War satisfying?

Yes of course, to both questions.

DS9 was the first Trek series free of Roddenberry and his silly rules.

As such, it became IMO the best Star Trek series of them all.

Never bettered, and unlikely ever to be.

You remeber the first time we met the Romulans in TNG in the neutral zone. When they activated their viewscreen there was two of them sitting there. Only one of them introduced himself so I assume he was in command. But they alternated in a peculiar way when answering questions. First one speaks, and the next reply the other one takes and then the first one again and so on. And whenever they were to make decisions they both looked at each other as if seeking approval. Do you think they may have toyed with idea of combined command between one Romulan and one Reman? Before they made a unique desing for the Remans I mean.

 

In all later appearances of the warbird there was alway only one commander on the viewscreen so whatever idea was behind the two in the Neutral Zone was dropped.

 

Anyway I thought it was interesting speculation. Might fit with twin worlds and the logo of the bird holding one planet in each claw, and would also have given the Romulans another distinction from other races. Almost a pity they didn't use it.

It was a commanding officer and a first officer. Tebok and Thei.

Personally I regard the Romulans/Remans as the same people.

The decision to introduce the Remans at all, and especially make them look so silly in appearance was one of the worst decisions ever in Star Trek.

Statistically it seems likely that of all the stars in the universe, many have orbiting planets, and some may be suitable for life.

However, I don't believe we have been visited, or that human beings have witnessed aliens or alien spacecraft.

The vast distances of the universe make it unlikely that we could communicate with them within practical human lifetimes. Now it's possible that aliens have superior technology but again unless we had compatible technology it's doubtful we'd be able to pick up their signals.

If aliens have said superior technology, it could mean that they have the ability to reach Earth, but it seems unlikely that a highly advanced alien race would lack or fail to use some kind of anti-detection technology.

Italy has a very recognisable shape.

So it's an easy way of conveying to the audience that they are in orbit of Earth.

I'd meet Jesus and Muhammed.

I'd like to hear what they think about the actions of those who claim to follow their respective teachings.

Hmmmm.... It looks like you trying to cover both bases by burring details. When anyone on this board referred the United States they are implying the government. When someone wants to state the citizens they refer to them as Americans. By referring to your cases, which does not support your point of view, as your rebuttal you are implying US government.

I do not care what "anyone on this board" may refer to. I speak for myself only. I do not see any reason why I must conform to the arbitrary standards that you declare as applicable to this site. If I didn't say "US government" then I did not mean "US government". I'm not trying to "burr" details. My details are clear to see.

Your cases does not support your augment.

Actually they do. I said the US has a history of religious motivations being used to try and interfere and repress scientific teachings. This is absolutely true. Previous anti-evolutionary laws have been struck down, and thankfully the US courts have resisted all further attempts. The fact that the US courts have managed to hold back the tide doesn't mean the attempts by the religiously motivated to interfere with science have ceased.

You have not given the proof that the US courts have not ruled in favor for creationism.

That is not the point of my statements. The point is that attempts to get creationism or variants of it have been repeatedly made.

The United States through the courts does not support creationism being taught in the classroom.

I never said they did.

This does not mean the American views on creationism are valid or pointless. They have right, according to Constitution, to have their opinion open in the "public square" along with scientific views on how life started.

American views on creationism are fine, when confined to the appropriate venue, which is not a public school science class. As for views on how life started, if people can come up with a scientific theory of abiogenesis which is peer reviewed by credible science institutions and scientists and held to scientific standards, then it would be taught. However "God Did It" is not a scientific theory, therefore would not be appropriate for teaching and discussion in science classes in public schools.

Some residents consider him a courageous fighter for religious freedom.

Those residents should seek professional therapy.

It's bad enough that he taught creationist nonsense in science classes, but even worse that he thought burning a cross into someone's flesh was OK.

The note looks very interesting and colorful.

I think so too.

You did. You did not state Dover case in this thread that I quoted from.

 

Lady Britannia,"The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

 

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day."

Yes, I've re-read my statement a few times and still can't find the words "US Government"

Proof please.

I've already cited some legal cases.

I went to a pubic school and I was not taught creationism myself in any science classes.

Excellent. Hopefully the US courts will continue to fight off the obsessive creationist lobby.

Coming from the country that still has a state religion.

Indeed that is regretable, but on the plus side, it does also come from the country that despite having a state religion, also has Charles Darwin and HMS Beagle on the ten pound note.

United States does not use religion in any forms to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances. The government spends billions on scientific projects which has produce number of scientific breakthroughs. Also the private sectors, I do not have the numbers on hand, also spends billions that has produce number scientific breakthroughs. Just because the federal government, all government worldwide are not so different, won't fund current scientific project it does not equal to repression.

 

I would love to read your proof that United States government does do this? I can say the same thing with Great Britain, but I would still need proof of it.

I did not mention the US government. I said "religion". Specifically the case in Dover, and historically the events leading up to the Scopes trial. In both cases, religious motivations to either repress or interfere with scientific progress.

Odie, I think one of the things LB is referring to is Creationism - which admittedly doesn't belong in public schools - and Evolution in general. I have to laugh at this - to enshrine any doctrine or theory to the point that it becomes sacrosanct so that it is not subject to discussion, contradictory viewpoints or critical analysis as evolution has become is the very epitome of repression of knowledge and thought.

If you are referring to evolutionary science, you are simply repeating tired old creationist/intelligent design arguments that their viewpoints are "repressed". However, it just isn't true. Creationist/intelligent design arguments are rejected because they are not scientific. It would be like believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is guiding all events on Earth, then claiming discrimination if such beliefs are not allowed into science classes.

There is no doubt that during the middle ages there was a conflict between religion and science (oh but this wasn't in America)

You don't need to go into the Middle Ages to find incidents of religious interference in science.

The Dover trial, 2005, Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987, Cobb County 2003.

All relatively recent.

The United States has been on the forefront of so many scientific advances and break-throughs that saying that repression of science in the United States is common is just down-right silly. I'm not saying that it never has, just that it's far from "common."

It's not downright silly. It's a very real situation. It's come up time and time again in America's legal system for decades.

Unbelievable isn't it?

Not really. I attended British state schools and creationism in science classes wasn't mentioned once.

But LB is right about one thing - it was trying to make a political statement. What's disturbing is that some people apparently believe there is merit in the far fetched fiction in order to support their political viewpoint

Fiction often reflects real world situations.

It's called "Art Imitating Life"

Perfect score.

Admittedly it was an odd storyline relating to how dinosaurs got off the planet Earth.

But I don't think that was the point of the episode.

The real story was based on how religion can be used to repress scientific breakthroughs and educational advances.

Which, in the United States, in particular, has been a common theme in history, and even the present day.

Adrien Brody should play The Riddler.

The character will have to be dark and violent, in order to fit the new tone of the movies.

So the Frank Gorshin/Jim Carrey type Riddler is out of the question.

I would suggest the Riddler should be portrayed as a terrorist/stalker type persona.

However, Trinneer was equally disturbed by having heard that a Paramount executive might have spoken to a fan group about the possibility that fans could raise sufficient funds to pay for a fifth season for Enterprise. "I don't think that Paramount ever, for a moment, was considering a season five -- and I don't know who, in the higher echelon of that company, said that," he stated, noting that he found the suggestion offensive. "Shame on them for saying to the fans, 'Well, if you pay for it, we'll put it back on.'" He felt that people could use their money for "much better things" than millions of dollars to revive a television show: "This is a movie studio, and to ask fans to pay for their project, I thought was kind of unforgivable."

TrekWeb points out that Paramount officially denies ever having held talks with TrekUnited, the group that was attempting to solicit millions of dollars from fans and corporations to bring back Enterprise, and StarTrek.com stated repeatedly that a fan-funded fifth season was never under consideration.

It's a shame that Trinneer couldn't get his facts straight before speaking on matters he is clueless about.