Marcroft

Or even do a Deep Space Nine movie - I would love to see what direction they would take. It's a shame though because I doubt they would ever do one.

Well I think that there are a couple of problems happening really with Paramount. Star Trek owes its revival in a large part to the success of Star Wars (as does a few other sci-fi shows past a present). When Star Wars first came out there was a sudden rush to find the next big space film. Paramount realised it had Star Trek and so out came The Motion Picture. Based on both franchises successes, it paved the way for the birth of The Next Generation, and effectively revitalised the Trek industry. The trouble is though (and this happens with so many spin offs - that the production teams are pretty much the same across all these series, so although you have differences between shows, these are really quite minimal. So you have the onset of stagnation. Now I think Paramount have semi recognised this fact - by trying to bring in someone new to revitalise Trek. Unfortunately Paramount has also decided to jump on the new band wagon, in trying to reinvent the wheel. (Just like with the reinventions of Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk and to a lesser degree Spiderman). Whilst I remain hopeful that the new film will be good - I have fears that it will just fall on its head. Why reinvent something that is established - because you know that at least in one form its sells. That doesn't mean that the reinvented film/characters will have the same appeal though - as NeoMaster points out. What has made the new Dr Who, BSG good? I would say that the biggest contributing factor is that on a production level you have had an injection of new blood; new idea's which are a departure away from the old. (I have no idea about Atlantis - I see it as a poor Voyager rip off - Sorry - it's not as bad as B5's Crusade though). If you take BSG - in no way could you say that the characters are meant to be the same as the 70's version. With the exception of Commander/Admiral Adama and his son, none of the original characters are even left in the show, with references only by name or call sign. They are not meant to be the same. Why reinvent a Trek series exactly as it is (in terms of characters) but just have them played by new actors? To me that really invalidates the work that the original cast and production crew put into The Original Series. What the powers that be at Paramount should do - is have JJ or someone else step in and take control to revitalise the franchise but yet be original within the Star Trek lore (IMHO).

Is it really that important - well some would argue that it is, and some would argue it isn't. It could be compared to being as important as Nichelle Nichols character of Uhura being present in the show in the 60's, portraying a very strong, intelligent black woman as a main character and as an equal on the bridge, esp. during such turbulent times in the pursuit of equal civil rights. Likewise the same would go with Sulu, playing an Eastern Asian man, both roles were a rare thing to see, esp. as lead characters. (I am only 27 and English and wasn't around in those times, so my point of view is retrospective). Star Trek has not really ever explored a gay character (main character or otherwise). For some reason what sexuality a person is attracted too is still an issue as much in life as it is on our TV screens. Within Star Trek there have only been really three example of this: • ST:TNG S4 The Host – the love attraction between Crusher and a Trill ambassador Odan – and then it was when the symbiont had to be moved into a new female host. • in ST:TNG S5 The Outcast - although that was about an androgynous species (neither male or female) • In ST:DS9 S4 Rejoined – though that was between two Trill, and arguably between the symbionts and not necessarily the hosts. It did have the first kiss though between two women in Star Trek (I believe). Should it change our perspective of Sulu - no way. Sulu is still the same character, it just so happens that the character and actor are both gay. That doesn’t invalidate you liking the character though. It’s only sad that there is not a Star Trek series that has addressed this – as this is perhaps one of the last ‘isms’ that has not been addressed or reflected upon. NB:- This topic had been locked on the grounds of being “potentially offensiveâ€ÂÂ. I had to message to get this reopened. Could we just ensure that we keep our comments in this thread in check, as insults, offensive and derogatory language are not tolerated (although so far no posts have been) and could result in the re-locking of this topic again. Thank you

I think his regeneration must have something to do with the Face of Boe - esp. given their exchange in "New Earth" and that according to the kitty nurse "he is the last of his kind". So somehow the Face of Boe has managed to live for so long then perhaps there is still hope for the Doctor. The Son idea sounds terrible though. I do hope that they dont ever go down that route. That's part of the charm about Doctor Who - you don't really know that much about him, yet we all love and trust him. I say keep the mystery going.

well from what I can tell

Great to hear that there will be more Battlestar ;D - I just wonder how the movie will turn out.

Crank up the volume if you have that ep as he does say it in a quieter voice - I was wondering if at first he was saying "Jonny, I'm Game" but then realised that Gay and Game are quite distinctive, esp with the volume up. y as in Hey m as in Mame

Hi all Note wishing to re-examine this old chestnut (but I couldn't post for some reason in the previous topic about this), but the character of Sulu was openly gay. What do I base this on - very simply - a 2 second quote from Mudd's Women. Sulu and Farrell (played by Jim Goodwin) - the conversations start 9:54 seconds into the episode when they both come out the turbolift. Sulu "We're on duty Jonny, back to reality" Farrell "You can feel their eyes when they look at you, like something grabbing hold of you, did you notice that" Sulu "I noticed, how I noticed. but Jonny I'm gay" 10:15 Then it cuts to Scotty talking to Spock about their impending doom - not at Sulu's announcement of course, but more to the fact they are running low on Dilithium. This must have been picked up else where but I'd be buggered if I could find where. Just thought I would share. edit "thanks for moving this to the right place"

Didn't mean to suggest it does - but in most Sci-fi very rarely do we see true imaginative characters or species. Within Star Trek most are just extracts or extensions of a certain aspect of humanity - (Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans). There are very few exceptions to that rule I think, when you can say something is truely a break away from that norm- Only really two species in TNG break that mold - The Borg (pre Voyager and First Contact), and Q. In DS9,Changlings, the Jem Hadar, the Prophets and Par Wraiths. in Voyager the photonic life forms, Species 8472, and the aliens in Equinox In Babylon 5 you had the Shadows and Vorlons, which are races that evolve in later episodes to really be about a concept/idea rather then an aspect of humanity. Sci-fi doesn't lack imagination but its limited by the very aspects of its creators becaues of the way we perceive and understand things, (as well as ratings). If you take 6 equally sized pieces of cardboard, and form them into a cube, most people will say you have a box. However, you could also say that you have a construct made from trillions of atoms. But why would we say its a box, because thats what our eyes can only perceive.

Yeah but the final design was not what Tom wanted - I mean that shuttle would have looked so much better with the dynametric tail fines. And from the grey modelling - I dont think that the Final Delta Flyer resembles that prototype much. To me it was a flying wedge. However, I do think that the Type 12 Shuttle is possibly the nicest design to come from Trek (in terms of Shuttlecraft, closely followed only by the Runabout)

The other way to go on this is the Klingon perspective of honour. I mean every Trek villian is based on aspects of human society (because that is all we can base them on when creating them). But perhaps this is a case whereby the Klingons have really been given a different perspective. Or just the writers screwing up. Or maybe its like the double meaning of words that are spelt the same, Like Wind (weather) and Wind (to wind up). Klingons might have honour, and honour - the same word with just different meanings?

Martia wasn't a Changeling - but a Chameloid (no idea on the spelling) another species that could adopt different forms in what seemed to be appearence only. There is nothing to suggest that good old sensors couldn't make the distinction between the two. Also her scream kinda gives it away. Kirk would never scream. Shout yes, scream like a girl no.

I hated the final design of the Delta Flyer - and to say that the design was totally his is somewhat flawed since it collectively took Tuvok, 7, Belanna, and the Engineering Staff to build it. As I say though hated that ship, and hated Paris for putting in those pointless levers and switches. I mean what what what???? And again in Voyager, lost in the Delta Quadrent and seemingly low in resources yet they always seem to have enough to repair and rebuild shuttle craft, the Delta Flyer was blown up and soon enough they had built a replacement. Tom's character though became bland, and you didn't really get to see much of his piloting skills in all honesty. They should have kept with the character from the Pilot.

So what did the first Cylons look like - and in terms of development if the Centurions dont have consciousness - assuming that the Centurion was what Human kind developed (the old style) how did they rebel?

Except that Moore has always liked characters/men like O'Brien, how do you think we have Tyrol?? He is pretty much the Chief, except O'Brien was here first