Fascinating
Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
111–120 of 132 posts
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main text surely was typed on a typewriter. Computer printed letters didn't really start happening until 1980 or so. Around then I bought a Diablo 630 daisywheel printer. That would produce beautiful typed pages, but monospaced. The printer paper had sprocket holes which were torn off after printing, but if you ran your finger over the edges you could tell. Proportional computer fonts weren't printed much until l…
I doubt anyone had a laser printer at home until Apple's LaserWriter first sold in 1985 (for $6995!), but laser printing was first developed between 1968 and 1972 at Xerox Parc, with IBM selling the first commercial laser printers in 1976.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3800#3800_Model_001
Yes the technology existed, but it wasn't pervasive because it was too expensive.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you are assuming it would be actually "scientific". IMO, TNG Technobabble was one of the worst elements of the later shows and inspired a legion of lukewarm nerd bullshit.
Strong disagree. Technobabble inspired a generation of STEM people, and at least early TNG, when the show had proper scientific consultation, it was a delight. Problem came with the witers' attitudes and production cheapening out - ignoring internal reference works, treating exposition as something you can stub out with a "[TECH]" placeholder, to be substituted by some word salad after the episode is already written.…
Agreed, to some extent. Perhaps I should have said Voyager style technobabble, as to some extent the later shows 'ruined' TNG for me.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#114Not a Star Trek related question, but I noticed that the title is printed in a special cursive font, while the rest of the document is typewritten. What kind of machine would have been used in 1964 to print a custom font for a one-off document?
The way it worked in the old days is you would have a graphic designer make your logo, then you take it to an offset printing shop and they would make your stationery for you. Same with business cards, as made famous in that scene from American Psycho.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, if you are a fan then you’ll realize women being sexy is integral to a good portion of the original Star Trek’s plots…of of course, Kirk being Kirk.
Then you actually watch TOS and start to wonder where did people get the idea wrt. Kirk from. He wasn't anywhere near the womanizer people accuse him of being - this seems to be one of those commonly widespread misconceptions about the show, up there with "beam me up, Scotty" (never actually said on the show), or "redshirts" being the ones to always die (someone did the math of casualties by uniform color, and red wa…
Kirk wasn't a womanizer - it's just that all of the women liked him.
Some of it does seem odd to a modern audience though, such as the episode where he gets flirty with a girl hitting puberty in "Miri." The odd part was he was taken aback when the others told him that she liked him.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
loved Super 8. Have watched it several times. It's his best movie IMO.
Super 8 has a coherent reveal of the mystery box. Lost did not and disappointed at the end. The kelvin timeline from when he rebooted Star Trek is sort of mystery box but then we learn who Nero is in a coherent way early on as well. I did not like that JJ destroyed Vulcan and frankly made a confusing alternate, darker timeline at all. The reboots are good movies but they were not good Star Trek movies. Missed opportu…
Speaking of the optimism in Star Trek... is it just me, or do Discovery and Strange New Worlds seem to be a bit "over-optimistic?" There's some really long scenes where they are trying to do an inspirational, optimistic Picard-style speech, talking about love and humanity and compassion, doing the right thing, etc.
Yeah those things are great, but spending 15 minutes showing every member of the bridge crew standing up, and repeating "we are Starfleet" every episode kinda starts to get old after a little while. The shows have been great otherwise, but I'm wondering if they are making this over the top on purpose, or if they are just missing the point a little bit.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work. Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because…
Well in star wars case, the executives are to take the blame. They planned a trilogy without writing it? They just shot ⅓ of a trilogy with no plan whatsoever of what should happen next?
You say that but I remember as far back as the 80s there being claims that George Lucas had planned 9 movies, including 3 prequels (which at that stage hadn’t been written).
Lucas then compounded things by selling the rights to Disney, a company famed for milking their IP.
Much as I enjoy the occasional Star Wars saga, I never really considered Lucas to be a great steward of the franchise either.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#118Great find. Tyrannosaurus in 1,000,000 BC though? More like 65,000,000
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#119Lucille Ball's best or second best decision in television history was to greenlight Star Trek. It was not a straightforward process, requiring an unusual 2nd pilot.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#120Ronald D Moores “series bible” for battlestar galactica is also quite a fun read for fans. A copy is available from the same site, so clearly this person enjoys their sci fi. http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/Battlesta...
"We take the Opera out of Space Opera"? I quit watching after several episodes because it devolved into High School level drama of who is fucking you and totally unwarrented flip-flops every episode of people being loyal, betraying, hating someone then in love with them etc. And (mostly) starbuck screaming, crying then totally forgetting she was overacting in the next scene. It was simplistic, base, boring and not sc…
> unwarrented flip-flops every episode of people being loyal, betraying, hating someone then in love with them etc.
This is what I hate about most TV series these days, the writers value conflict over character. This basically prevents any actual character development, or even any character identity at all, as the character changes from episode to episode. This is what makes a series forgettable.
Roddenberry forbade intra crew conflict as a plot device, so Star Trek has identifiable character that people still remember. BSGs characters are already forgotten, because they lacked identity.