Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!
Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
51–60 of 132 posts
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#52Ronald 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…
I only watched bits and pieces and it never quite connected with me.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#53Not 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?
Though I doubt the document was typeset (because it appears typed by a typewriter), before desktop publishing, and before typesetting computer systems, there was phototypesetting.[1] Because this is only a minor element on one page, I doubt it was phototypeset and instead merely pasted up with type tape... literally rolls of clear tape for every font with one letter on it repeated over and over in all point sizes. Lo…
Proportional computer fonts weren't printed much until laser printers appeared, which revolutionized everything.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#54Awesome collection! Pitch bible from He-Man Masters of the Universe is solid gold ;) "Beyond the farthest galaxies viewed by the greatest telescopes on Earth. Beyond the limits of our universe lies another place - a place of magic, myth, sorcery and science. Through the cosmic clouds spins a solar system with a type three star twinkling in the ether of interstellar space. About the star rotate worlds inconceivable to…
The D&D "Deities and Demigods" supplement was published in 1980; first ep of He-Man was '83. I can't help but wonder if that phrasing was an instance of simple alliterative coincidence or if the He-Man showrunners were tabletop nerds.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#55Sigh.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#56Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read! "...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide" It's shockingly misogynistic!
What you should be marveling at is that, for the 1960s, Star Trek TOS had highly progressive aspects, such as having women about a warship at all, let alone as officers and even the first officer. For comparison, in the United States Navy, women were not allowed to serve on combatant ships until 1994[1] and having the first woman to be assigned to command a combatant ship didn't happen until 1998[2]. Even I'm a bit surprised to discover that it was that recent.
[1] https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Nav...
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
I watched "Beverly Hills 90210" for a while (shame on me), and eventually realized that all the plots were "given X cast members, how many episodes can one create that revolves around one member of the cast hooking up with another"?
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And if having no plan wasn't damning enough, the compounding crime was not at least being as good storytellers along the way as X Files. I couldn't stand all the unbelivable behavior. When you don't know anything about someone yet, then you can be forgiven for falling for deception from them. But once you do catch them doing something inexcusable, why the f have you forgotten all about that an episode or two later? A…
I recall liking Lost early on, when it seemed that they were all in purgatory, and, one by one, we'd learn their backstories, as they found redemption on the Island.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if having no plan wasn't damning enough, the compounding crime was not at least being as good storytellers along the way as X Files. I couldn't stand all the unbelivable behavior. When you don't know anything about someone yet, then you can be forgiven for falling for deception from them. But once you do catch them doing something inexcusable, why the f have you forgotten all about that an episode or two later? A…
> Lost felt pointless immediately I recall liking Lost early on, when it seemed that they were all in purgatory, and, one by one, we'd learn their backstories, as they found redemption on the Island.
Re: Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched "Beverly Hills 90210" for a while (shame on me), and eventually realized that all the plots were "given X cast members, how many episodes can one create that revolves around one member of the cast hooking up with another"?
I watched Melrose Place.