Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

leethomson.myzen.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#121

Post by _tom_ »

neilv wrote: post #27
cwillu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cylons did not, in fact, have a plan.

Sounds like they were Lost . ("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a s…

I skip any show that has only one central mystery. If they solve it, the show is over, so you know from day one it will be never be solved.

Lost was obviously in this category.

A five year mission is a much better premise.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#123

Post by djmips »

dottrap wrote: post #41
techdragon wrote: post #23

I'm surprised at how jarring the math and background on page 2 feels. It really feels reflective of a different era, coming from a modern perspective Id never dare include something like that, with a big "scary looking formula" that needed explanation text, in the first half dozen pages. I wouldn't trust the reader to care enough to keep reading one word past the formula if I didn't already have them reasonably inves…

Not only that, they wrote part of this math into a monologue for Dr. McCoy, where McCoy was advising Kirk. In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk. From the episode Balance of Terror: https://youtu.be/2237…

I read that and Carl Sagan's voice comes to mind.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#124

Post by suction »

dottrap wrote: post #41
techdragon wrote: post #23

I'm surprised at how jarring the math and background on page 2 feels. It really feels reflective of a different era, coming from a modern perspective Id never dare include something like that, with a big "scary looking formula" that needed explanation text, in the first half dozen pages. I wouldn't trust the reader to care enough to keep reading one word past the formula if I didn't already have them reasonably inves…

Not only that, they wrote part of this math into a monologue for Dr. McCoy, where McCoy was advising Kirk. In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk. From the episode Balance of Terror: https://youtu.be/2237…

No post body was provided.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#125

Post by krapp »

mcv wrote: post #96
hnlmorg wrote: post #61

Earlier 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…

Yeah, I'd rather not see JJ Abrams touch any of my favourite things anymore. So of course it turns out two of his writers became the Rings of Power showrunners. Fortunately they seem to at least know what's in their mystery boxes, but personally I could do without them. The Star Wars sequels definitely suffered from the fact that Abrams just threw a lot of shit at the wall to see what stuck, then Johnson saw it was a…

Unlike a lot of the old generation of Star Wars fandom, I actually liked a lot of what the sequels were trying to do, and I wanted to see a fresh, revisionist (even deconstructionist) take on the lore. Instead we got A New Hope for the third time and an incoherent mess of wasted potential and mutual sabotage between directors.

It's actually astounding that they would treat one of the most lucrative properties in history the way they did. Maybe they just assumed Star Wars was so big it couldn't fail.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#126

Post by mcv »

krapp wrote: post #125
mcv wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'd rather not see JJ Abrams touch any of my favourite things anymore. So of course it turns out two of his writers became the Rings of Power showrunners. Fortunately they seem to at least know what's in their mystery boxes, but personally I could do without them. The Star Wars sequels definitely suffered from the fact that Abrams just threw a lot of shit at the wall to see what stuck, then Johnson saw it was a…

Unlike a lot of the old generation of Star Wars fandom, I actually liked a lot of what the sequels were trying to do, and I wanted to see a fresh, revisionist (even deconstructionist) take on the lore. Instead we got A New Hope for the third time and an incoherent mess of wasted potential and mutual sabotage between directors. It's actually astounding that they would treat one of the most lucrative properties in hist…

I am old generation Star Wars fandom, and I actually liked what The Last Jedi tried to do. It didn't really succeed, but questioning the Jedi teachings, or at least Yoda's approach to them, that drove Anakin and possible Count Dooku to the dark side, and that Luke had to ignore in order to defeat Palpatine, is an awesome idea, and one of the few things left to really move Star Wars forward at that point.

It didn't come out well, was muddled in other crap, and the whole trilogy was crippled by two arguing directors, but that basic idea was solid. If that was indeed the intention.

I also liked the first half of The Force Awakens, when it was still about the Search for Skywalker, before it turned into Death Star 3.

Combine the first half of TFA with the good bits of TLJ, and you've got a good story.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#127

Post by zeckalpha »

gumby wrote: post #43
zeckalpha wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pen, perhaps? Inksmanship, drafting, lettering all were much more common skills. Could also be stickers, hot metal typesetting (unlikely), or even phototypesetting.

I don't think there was phototype in 1964. Probably Letraset. I think phototypesetters arrived around 1974

> The use of phototypesetting grew rapidly in the 1960s when software was developed to convert marked up copy, usually typed on paper tape, to the codes that controlled the phototypesetters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#128

Post by DonHopkins »

midasuni wrote: post #67
DonHopkins wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“series bible” for battlestar galactica You mean the Book of Mormon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Kolob_as_the_inspiration... https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2005/05/born-... https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/22/20553208/mormon-creator-o... https://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-morm... http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/battlestargalactica.htm https://www.quora.com/What-are-som…

That came out after the BSG reboot

Have you even seen the original BSG or the reboot? It's really obvious if you know anything about Mormonism.

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#129

Post by gumby »

zeckalpha wrote: post #127
gumby wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there was phototype in 1964. Probably Letraset. I think phototypesetters arrived around 1974

> The use of phototypesetting grew rapidly in the 1960s when software was developed to convert marked up copy, usually typed on paper tape, to the codes that controlled the phototypesetters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting

Thanks!

Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]

#130

Post by simonh »

DonHopkins wrote: post #36
cheschire wrote: post #4

Ronald 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...

>“series bible” for battlestar galactica You mean the Book of Mormon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Kolob_as_the_inspiration... https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2005/05/born-... https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/22/20553208/mormon-creator-o... https://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-morm... http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/battlestargalactica.htm https://www.quora.com/What-are-som…

Just because I'm an Atheist, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate Tolkien, or C. S. Lewis. What matters to me is the quality of the material. Sure I found the metaphysics in the last season a bit much, I know plenty of people that didn't enjoy it on it's merits and that's fine it's just personal taste, but there was still plenty for me to enjoy so that's fine.
Post reply on HN