Crew Of USS Enterprise

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

FWIW, on his role in Star Trek, Collins notes that

"People keep saying, “Oh, I just saw you in Star Trek” and it just drives me crazy because, while it’s a serviceable performance and it works in the context of the movie, there’s no shade, no nuance, and I want to scream whenever I see it."

 

 

Source: http://www.startrek....lks-first-movie

 

Meanwhile, Trekkies aren't exactly known for taking things lightly, so the reaction to the news on a few Trek noticeboards has been interesting. Mods have basically been shutting down the discussions on the allegations fairly quickly and some Trekkies are swearing they will never watch The Motion Picture again.

 

I'm a massive Trek fan and I'll never watch The Motion Picture again because: A - it's overly long and B - when I went into a Parisian cinema in 1980 to watch it, it was in English with French subtitles.

 

I went to see it with my married sister when it first came out and we went to the pub for a quick drink before going home. Together with her husband, they owned a shop and a known gossipy customer came in the following day to inform my brother-in-law that she had seen his wife in the pub with a man. He replied along the lines of - they're brother and sister and I don't think their relationship is incestuous. She left without saying another word.

It is definitely "the poor man's 2001" but I prefer it to the "militaristic Star Fleet" in the Meyer films. I think it is a film you can immerse yourself - don't worry about the plot, just enjoy the special effects and the orchestral score. The Enterprise, for one thing, has never seemed more real. I don't think I have ever seen better model work, even on the original Star Wars films. You feel as if it really is a giant spaceship capable of traveling between the stars.

 

I don't get point B. Did you just want to watch it in English without the distraction of the subtitles or would you prefer it to be overdubbed in French? FWIW, I watch French films with English subtitles all the time, since I am monolinguistic but love French cinema.

 

One interesting reading of the film I came across is that it is all a metaphor for sex and birth. The gleaming white Enterprise shoots out from the phallic dry dock, enters the ova-like V'Ger cloud and, at the end, a new life is born...

 

I find The (slow) Motion Picture almost unwatchable even though it is directed by Robert Wise who brought us The Sound of Music and The Day The Earth Stood Still. It would probably be a good attempt at being a 'realistic' science fiction movie but it is a million miles away from the 'camp' feel of the original series. Meyer's films are closer to the original and are excellent sf adventure movies. Worse than the Motion Picture is ST:V.

Yes, i prefer the realistic over the camp myself most of the time (1960s Batman being the big exception.) I am not a fan of the original 1960s Trek television series at all.

 

The "office politics" between Kirk and Decker can be a bit depressing and too-real-life after a while though, although I imagine that is the kind of person Kirk would be like if he were real.

 

I will have to part company with you on Meyer though. Aside from the overt militarism in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, I thought the latter's murder mystery was very poorly done. The analogies to the collapse of the Soviet Union are that film's only saving grace.

 

Yes, objectively Star Trek 5 was terrible but... I like aspects of it, at least until it all falls apart at the end when they reach the "God Planet." I think Shatner did have a good eye for cinematography, such as the opening scene where Spock's brother comes riding in on horseback to the bloke digging holes. Had he been trained as a director from a young age, he might have made something of that career path. (Obviously, the much commented bad editing in the elevator scene is a mess though but, hell, there are lots of editing mistakes in the original Star Wars, too, such as the way R5-D4 moves back and forth.)

 

The opening scene of Kirk trying to climb the mountain (and failing) is nicely symbolic of the search for God that is the theme of the story.

 

The campfire scenes also help develop the characters of Spock, McCoy and Kirk more than nearly any other scene in any of the previous films (not that that is saying much.)

 

Overall, though, the film can't overcome that awful "Why does God need a starship?" line and the twee ending. If you want a science fiction film that deals with spiritual subjects, you are better off watching Tarkovsky's Solaris, 2001 or, yes, even Star Trek: The Motion Picture....

 

P.S. - FWIW, I also think that Wise's Day th Earth Stood Still is one of the truly great SF films to come out of the United States.

 

The like in the above post was purely for the last line.

 

Like our Genesis conversation it seems we both have a lot to say on this topic but from different perspectives.

 

ST:TOS is part of my childhood and I have always enjoyed it but I understand its limitations. I tried to watch TNG when it came along but it was so far up its own arse that I rapidly gave up. DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5 and Voyager did not deliver its promise.

 

There I kept it brief so as to avoid enraging our fellow posters who give not a toss about this subject.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

FWIW, on his role in Star Trek, Collins notes that

"People keep saying, “Oh, I just saw you in Star Trek” and it just drives me crazy because, while it’s a serviceable performance and it works in the context of the movie, there’s no shade, no nuance, and I want to scream whenever I see it."

 

 

Source: http://www.startrek....lks-first-movie

 

Meanwhile, Trekkies aren't exactly known for taking things lightly, so the reaction to the news on a few Trek noticeboards has been interesting. Mods have basically been shutting down the discussions on the allegations fairly quickly and some Trekkies are swearing they will never watch The Motion Picture again.

 

I'm a massive Trek fan and I'll never watch The Motion Picture again because: A - it's overly long and B - when I went into a Parisian cinema in 1980 to watch it, it was in English with French subtitles.

 

I went to see it with my married sister when it first came out and we went to the pub for a quick drink before going home. Together with her husband, they owned a shop and a known gossipy customer came in the following day to inform my brother-in-law that she had seen his wife in the pub with a man. He replied along the lines of - they're brother and sister and I don't think their relationship is incestuous. She left without saying another word.

It is definitely "the poor man's 2001" but I prefer it to the "militaristic Star Fleet" in the Meyer films. I think it is a film you can immerse yourself - don't worry about the plot, just enjoy the special effects and the orchestral score. The Enterprise, for one thing, has never seemed more real. I don't think I have ever seen better model work, even on the original Star Wars films. You feel as if it really is a giant spaceship capable of traveling between the stars.

 

I don't get point B. Did you just want to watch it in English without the distraction of the subtitles or would you prefer it to be overdubbed in French? FWIW, I watch French films with English subtitles all the time, since I am monolinguistic but love French cinema.

 

One interesting reading of the film I came across is that it is all a metaphor for sex and birth. The gleaming white Enterprise shoots out from the phallic dry dock, enters the ova-like V'Ger cloud and, at the end, a new life is born...

 

I find The (slow) Motion Picture almost unwatchable even though it is directed by Robert Wise who brought us The Sound of Music and The Day The Earth Stood Still. It would probably be a good attempt at being a 'realistic' science fiction movie but it is a million miles away from the 'camp' feel of the original series. Meyer's films are closer to the original and are excellent sf adventure movies. Worse than the Motion Picture is ST:V.

Yes, i prefer the realistic over the camp myself most of the time (1960s Batman being the big exception.) I am not a fan of the original 1960s Trek television series at all.

 

The "office politics" between Kirk and Decker can be a bit depressing and too-real-life after a while though, although I imagine that is the kind of person Kirk would be like if he were real.

 

I will have to part company with you on Meyer though. Aside from the overt militarism in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, I thought the latter's murder mystery was very poorly done. The analogies to the collapse of the Soviet Union are that film's only saving grace.

 

Yes, objectively Star Trek 5 was terrible but... I like aspects of it, at least until it all falls apart at the end when they reach the "God Planet." I think Shatner did have a good eye for cinematography, such as the opening scene where Spock's brother comes riding in on horseback to the bloke digging holes. Had he been trained as a director from a young age, he might have made something of that career path. (Obviously, the much commented bad editing in the elevator scene is a mess though but, hell, there are lots of editing mistakes in the original Star Wars, too, such as the way R5-D4 moves back and forth.)

 

The opening scene of Kirk trying to climb the mountain (and failing) is nicely symbolic of the search for God that is the theme of the story.

 

The campfire scenes also help develop the characters of Spock, McCoy and Kirk more than nearly any other scene in any of the previous films (not that that is saying much.)

 

Overall, though, the film can't overcome that awful "Why does God need a starship?" line and the twee ending. If you want a science fiction film that deals with spiritual subjects, you are better off watching Tarkovsky's Solaris, 2001 or, yes, even Star Trek: The Motion Picture....

 

P.S. - FWIW, I also think that Wise's Day th Earth Stood Still is one of the truly great SF films to come out of the United States.

 

The like in the above post was purely for the last line.

 

Like our Genesis conversation it seems we both have a lot to say on this topic but from different perspectives.

 

ST:TOS is part of my childhood and I have always enjoyed it but I understand its limitations. I tried to watch TNG when it came along but it was so far up its own arse that I rapidly gave up. DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5 and Voyager did not deliver its promise.

 

There I kept it brief so as to avoid enraging our fellow posters who give not a toss about this subject.

I agree about TNG. Have only watched a few episodes of Voyager and found it unbearable. I actually liked the first season of Enterprise since it was actually about space exploration unlike most Trek... The writing fell away in season 2 though and I understandseasons 3 and 4 just become space battle/post Sep 11 allegories so I haven't bothered with them. For a gokd recent space explorationfilm in realist vein you may or maynot like Europa Report. Its release was overshadowed by Gravity but I think it is definiteltthe better film of the two.

[time 8,611]

FWIW, on his role in Star Trek, Collins notes that

"People keep saying, “Oh, I just saw you in Star Trek” and it just drives me crazy because, while it’s a serviceable performance and it works in the context of the movie, there’s no shade, no nuance, and I want to scream whenever I see it."

 

 

Source: http://www.startrek....lks-first-movie

 

Meanwhile, Trekkies aren't exactly known for taking things lightly, so the reaction to the news on a few Trek noticeboards has been interesting. Mods have basically been shutting down the discussions on the allegations fairly quickly and some Trekkies are swearing they will never watch The Motion Picture again.

 

I'm a massive Trek fan and I'll never watch The Motion Picture again because: A - it's overly long and B - when I went into a Parisian cinema in 1980 to watch it, it was in English with French subtitles.

 

I went to see it with my married sister when it first came out and we went to the pub for a quick drink before going home. Together with her husband, they owned a shop and a known gossipy customer came in the following day to inform my brother-in-law that she had seen his wife in the pub with a man. He replied along the lines of - they're brother and sister and I don't think their relationship is incestuous. She left without saying another word.

It is definitely "the poor man's 2001" but I prefer it to the "militaristic Star Fleet" in the Meyer films. I think it is a film you can immerse yourself - don't worry about the plot, just enjoy the special effects and the orchestral score. The Enterprise, for one thing, has never seemed more real. I don't think I have ever seen better model work, even on the original Star Wars films. You feel as if it really is a giant spaceship capable of traveling between the stars.

 

I don't get point B. Did you just want to watch it in English without the distraction of the subtitles or would you prefer it to be overdubbed in French? FWIW, I watch French films with English subtitles all the time, since I am monolinguistic but love French cinema.

 

One interesting reading of the film I came across is that it is all a metaphor for sex and birth. The gleaming white Enterprise shoots out from the phallic dry dock, enters the ova-like V'Ger cloud and, at the end, a new life is born...

 

I find The (slow) Motion Picture almost unwatchable even though it is directed by Robert Wise who brought us The Sound of Music and The Day The Earth Stood Still. It would probably be a good attempt at being a 'realistic' science fiction movie but it is a million miles away from the 'camp' feel of the original series. Meyer's films are closer to the original and are excellent sf adventure movies. Worse than the Motion Picture is ST:V.

Yes, i prefer the realistic over the camp myself most of the time (1960s Batman being the big exception.) I am not a fan of the original 1960s Trek television series at all.

 

The "office politics" between Kirk and Decker can be a bit depressing and too-real-life after a while though, although I imagine that is the kind of person Kirk would be like if he were real.

 

I will have to part company with you on Meyer though. Aside from the overt militarism in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, I thought the latter's murder mystery was very poorly done. The analogies to the collapse of the Soviet Union are that film's only saving grace.

 

Yes, objectively Star Trek 5 was terrible but... I like aspects of it, at least until it all falls apart at the end when they reach the "God Planet." I think Shatner did have a good eye for cinematography, such as the opening scene where Spock's brother comes riding in on horseback to the bloke digging holes. Had he been trained as a director from a young age, he might have made something of that career path. (Obviously, the much commented bad editing in the elevator scene is a mess though but, hell, there are lots of editing mistakes in the original Star Wars, too, such as the way R5-D4 moves back and forth.)

 

The opening scene of Kirk trying to climb the mountain (and failing) is nicely symbolic of the search for God that is the theme of the story.

 

The campfire scenes also help develop the characters of Spock, McCoy and Kirk more than nearly any other scene in any of the previous films (not that that is saying much.)

 

Overall, though, the film can't overcome that awful "Why does God need a starship?" line and the twee ending. If you want a science fiction film that deals with spiritual subjects, you are better off watching Tarkovsky's Solaris, 2001 or, yes, even Star Trek: The Motion Picture....

 

P.S. - FWIW, I also think that Wise's Day th Earth Stood Still is one of the truly great SF films to come out of the United States.

 

The like in the above post was purely for the last line.

 

Like our Genesis conversation it seems we both have a lot to say on this topic but from different perspectives.

 

ST:TOS is part of my childhood and I have always enjoyed it but I understand its limitations. I tried to watch TNG when it came along but it was so far up its own arse that I rapidly gave up. DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5 and Voyager did not deliver its promise.

 

There I kept it brief so as to avoid enraging our fellow posters who give not a toss about this subject.

What about the animated series?

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

FWIW, on his role in Star Trek, Collins notes that

"People keep saying, “Oh, I just saw you in Star Trek” and it just drives me crazy because, while it’s a serviceable performance and it works in the context of the movie, there’s no shade, no nuance, and I want to scream whenever I see it."

 

 

Source: http://www.startrek....lks-first-movie

 

Meanwhile, Trekkies aren't exactly known for taking things lightly, so the reaction to the news on a few Trek noticeboards has been interesting. Mods have basically been shutting down the discussions on the allegations fairly quickly and some Trekkies are swearing they will never watch The Motion Picture again.

 

I'm a massive Trek fan and I'll never watch The Motion Picture again because: A - it's overly long and B - when I went into a Parisian cinema in 1980 to watch it, it was in English with French subtitles.

 

I went to see it with my married sister when it first came out and we went to the pub for a quick drink before going home. Together with her husband, they owned a shop and a known gossipy customer came in the following day to inform my brother-in-law that she had seen his wife in the pub with a man. He replied along the lines of - they're brother and sister and I don't think their relationship is incestuous. She left without saying another word.

It is definitely "the poor man's 2001" but I prefer it to the "militaristic Star Fleet" in the Meyer films. I think it is a film you can immerse yourself - don't worry about the plot, just enjoy the special effects and the orchestral score. The Enterprise, for one thing, has never seemed more real. I don't think I have ever seen better model work, even on the original Star Wars films. You feel as if it really is a giant spaceship capable of traveling between the stars.

 

I don't get point B. Did you just want to watch it in English without the distraction of the subtitles or would you prefer it to be overdubbed in French? FWIW, I watch French films with English subtitles all the time, since I am monolinguistic but love French cinema.

 

One interesting reading of the film I came across is that it is all a metaphor for sex and birth. The gleaming white Enterprise shoots out from the phallic dry dock, enters the ova-like V'Ger cloud and, at the end, a new life is born...

 

I find The (slow) Motion Picture almost unwatchable even though it is directed by Robert Wise who brought us The Sound of Music and The Day The Earth Stood Still. It would probably be a good attempt at being a 'realistic' science fiction movie but it is a million miles away from the 'camp' feel of the original series. Meyer's films are closer to the original and are excellent sf adventure movies. Worse than the Motion Picture is ST:V.

Yes, i prefer the realistic over the camp myself most of the time (1960s Batman being the big exception.) I am not a fan of the original 1960s Trek television series at all.

 

The "office politics" between Kirk and Decker can be a bit depressing and too-real-life after a while though, although I imagine that is the kind of person Kirk would be like if he were real.

 

I will have to part company with you on Meyer though. Aside from the overt militarism in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, I thought the latter's murder mystery was very poorly done. The analogies to the collapse of the Soviet Union are that film's only saving grace.

 

Yes, objectively Star Trek 5 was terrible but... I like aspects of it, at least until it all falls apart at the end when they reach the "God Planet." I think Shatner did have a good eye for cinematography, such as the opening scene where Spock's brother comes riding in on horseback to the bloke digging holes. Had he been trained as a director from a young age, he might have made something of that career path. (Obviously, the much commented bad editing in the elevator scene is a mess though but, hell, there are lots of editing mistakes in the original Star Wars, too, such as the way R5-D4 moves back and forth.)

 

The opening scene of Kirk trying to climb the mountain (and failing) is nicely symbolic of the search for God that is the theme of the story.

 

The campfire scenes also help develop the characters of Spock, McCoy and Kirk more than nearly any other scene in any of the previous films (not that that is saying much.)

 

Overall, though, the film can't overcome that awful "Why does God need a starship?" line and the twee ending. If you want a science fiction film that deals with spiritual subjects, you are better off watching Tarkovsky's Solaris, 2001 or, yes, even Star Trek: The Motion Picture....

 

P.S. - FWIW, I also think that Wise's Day th Earth Stood Still is one of the truly great SF films to come out of the United States.

 

The like in the above post was purely for the last line.

 

Like our Genesis conversation it seems we both have a lot to say on this topic but from different perspectives.

 

ST:TOS is part of my childhood and I have always enjoyed it but I understand its limitations. I tried to watch TNG when it came along but it was so far up its own arse that I rapidly gave up. DS9 was a poor man's Babylon 5 and Voyager did not deliver its promise.

 

There I kept it brief so as to avoid enraging our fellow posters who give not a toss about this subject.

What about the animated series?

 

Passed me by.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

I have never seen the animated show either and have no real desire to do so. One of the hardcore Trekkies atmy workplace though feels it is "canonical" and regards it as an extension of the original series.

 

Just to expand Bibliogryphon's commentthat TNG was buried uo its own rectum, I think one issue with it was that Voyage Home had been a huge popular hit in cinemas when I was a kid so, when a new Trek show was announced, casual fans thought it would have the same space/action/comedy/message formula but of course the show was very different. I don't think it was all that successful with mainstream audiences in Aus, because after a few years it was moved from Saturday evening to a late night slot. Obviously hugely popular amongst Trekkies though and I read somewhere it was quite popular in Germany.

 

Now, to put this discussion back on topic, who do we think will die first out of Nimoy and Shatner?

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

I have never seen the animated show either and have no real desire to do so. One of the hardcore Trekkies atmy workplace though feels it is "canonical" and regards it as an extension of the original series.

 

Just to expand Bibliogryphon's commentthat TNG was buried uo its own rectum, I think one issue with it was that Voyage Home had been a huge popular hit in cinemas when I was a kid so, when a new Trek show was announced, casual fans thought it would have the same space/action/comedy/message formula but of course the show was very different. I don't think it was all that successful with mainstream audiences in Aus, because after a few years it was moved from Saturday evening to a late night slot. Obviously hugely popular amongst Trekkies though and I read somewhere it was quite popular in Germany.

 

Now, to put this discussion back on topic, who do we think will die first out of Nimoy and Shatner?

 

The logical choice would be Nimoy.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

I have never seen the animated show either and have no real desire to do so. One of the hardcore Trekkies atmy workplace though feels it is "canonical" and regards it as an extension of the original series.

 

Just to expand Bibliogryphon's commentthat TNG was buried uo its own rectum, I think one issue with it was that Voyage Home had been a huge popular hit in cinemas when I was a kid so, when a new Trek show was announced, casual fans thought it would have the same space/action/comedy/message formula but of course the show was very different. I don't think it was all that successful with mainstream audiences in Aus, because after a few years it was moved from Saturday evening to a late night slot. Obviously hugely popular amongst Trekkies though and I read somewhere it was quite popular in Germany.

 

Now, to put this discussion back on topic, who do we think will die first out of Nimoy and Shatner?

 

The logical choice would be Nimoy.

But he might deposit his katra somewhere and come back from the dead again! At least Shatner's Kirk has stayed dead (up until now, any rate.)

 

 

Just one other point on Trek in general: I have learned over the past few years that its popularity fluctuates dramatically from country to country. Here in Australia (and I think the UK would be similar) the early Trek films were considered, by most kids and causal viewers, to be more or less on a par with the Star Wars films. In other words, a Star Wars film would come out one year, then a Trek the next and so on, with Trek's popularity culminating with the aforementioned Voyage Home. After that, people lost interest and it has never really regained its appeal. Even the Abrams films were greeted with half-full cinemas here, despite the presence of Eric Bana in the first one.

 

In the US however, Trek apparently had a huge stigma due to the cult of Trekkies and a lot of JJ Abrams' effort in the recent films has been an attempt to make the series cool.

 

In the non-English speaking world, Trek has never been popular in many markets at all and is barely known, compared to the immense popularity of Star Wars. They did some surveys when the Abrams films came out and compared them with the recent X-Men and Wolverine films that were out at around the same time. Whereas X-Men and Wolverine had a nearly 50-50 split between domestic US and international box office earnings, Abrams' trek was something like a 70-30 split. Star Trek Into Darkness did better and started to gain traction in markets such as Mexico and parts of Asia but it has a long way to go until it is considered a mainstream franchise. In mainland Europe, it still has virtually no traction. (As mentioned above, one interesting market is Germany: because of TNG's success, more people went to see Insurrection and Nemesis at the box office than went to see either of the Abrams' films). Conclusion from all of this: the non-English speaking world has good taste.

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

I have never seen the animated show either and have no real desire to do so. One of the hardcore Trekkies atmy workplace though feels it is "canonical" and regards it as an extension of the original series.

 

Just to expand Bibliogryphon's commentthat TNG was buried uo its own rectum, I think one issue with it was that Voyage Home had been a huge popular hit in cinemas when I was a kid so, when a new Trek show was announced, casual fans thought it would have the same space/action/comedy/message formula but of course the show was very different. I don't think it was all that successful with mainstream audiences in Aus, because after a few years it was moved from Saturday evening to a late night slot. Obviously hugely popular amongst Trekkies though and I read somewhere it was quite popular in Germany.

 

Now, to put this discussion back on topic, who do we think will die first out of Nimoy and Shatner?

 

The logical choice would be Nimoy.

But he might deposit his katra somewhere and come back from the dead again! At least Shatner's Kirk has stayed dead (up until now, any rate.)

 

 

Just one other point on Trek in general: I have learned over the past few years that its popularity fluctuates dramatically from country to country. Here in Australia (and I think the UK would be similar) the early Trek films were considered, by most kids and causal viewers, to be more or less on a par with the Star Wars films. In other words, a Star Wars film would come out one year, then a Trek the next and so on, with Trek's popularity culminating with the aforementioned Voyage Home. After that, people lost interest and it has never really regained its appeal. Even the Abrams films were greeted with half-full cinemas here, despite the presence of Eric Bana in the first one.

 

In the US however, Trek apparently had a huge stigma due to the cult of Trekkies and a lot of JJ Abrams' effort in the recent films has been an attempt to make the series cool.

 

In the non-English speaking world, Trek has never been popular in many markets at all and is barely known, compared to the immense popularity of Star Wars. They did some surveys when the Abrams films came out and compared them with the recent X-Men and Wolverine films that were out at around the same time. Whereas X-Men and Wolverine had a nearly 50-50 split between domestic US and international box office earnings, Abrams' trek was something like a 70-30 split. Star Trek Into Darkness did better and started to gain traction in markets such as Mexico and parts of Asia but it has a long way to go until it is considered a mainstream franchise. In mainland Europe, it still has virtually no traction. (As mentioned above, one interesting market is Germany: because of TNG's success, more people went to see Insurrection and Nemesis at the box office than went to see either of the Abrams' films). Conclusion from all of this: the non-English speaking world has good taste.

Where I work may not be represntative of the rest of the UK but I know some hard core trekkies. Including someone high up in the official Patrick Stewart fan club.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Another one to keep an eye on is Grace Lee Whitney who played Rand. She is 84 now, which is a miracle in itself, given that she hit the bottle badly back in her day. Old interview here: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20106998,00.html

[time 8,611]

Not quite Star Trek but it turns out Robert Kinoshita, the bloke who designed Robbie the Robot for Forbidden Planet and B9 for Lost in Space, is still around at age 97:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kinoshita

 

Turns out there is a B9 Robot Builders' Club out there too: http://www.b9robotbuildersclub.com/pub/home/kinoshita.html

Robert Kinoshita died 9th December '14, aged 100.

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

Not a good week for Star Trek as Harve Bennett dies

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Grace Lee Whitney who played Janice Rand in the original Star Trek is dead at 85. http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/story/d/story/breaking-news-grace-lee-whitney-janice-rand-of-sta/59006/FOK2_p3fKUezOgKbksZ8_A

 

Here's a better one from NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/grace-lee-whitney-yeoman-rand-original-star-trek-dies-n353001

[Guest Guest]

Another one to keep an eye on is Grace Lee Whitney who played Rand. She is 84 now, which is a miracle in itself, given that she hit the bottle badly back in her day. Old interview here: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20106998,00.html

the bottle caught up with her. dead at 85 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/grace-lee-whitney-star-trek-dies-age-85-article-1.2208990

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

"She's dead, gin."

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

Grace Lee Whitney who played Janice Rand in the original Star Trek is dead at 85. http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/story/d/story/breaking-news-grace-lee-whitney-janice-rand-of-sta/59006/FOK2_p3fKUezOgKbksZ8_A

 

Here's a better one from NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/grace-lee-whitney-yeoman-rand-original-star-trek-dies-n353001

 

Last night I decided to try a first draft of my 2016 shadow list and I picked Grace Lee Whitney to go on it. Plenty of substitutes.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Thought I'd update the list:

 

William Shatner (Captain James T. Kirk), b. 22 Mar 1931 (Montreal, Canada) - Alive, 84. One of first tweets giving tribute to Grace Lee Whitney.

Leonard Nimoy (Lt. Cmdr./Commander Spock), b. 26 Mar 1931 (Boston, USA) d. 27 February 2015 (Bel-Air, Los Angeles, USA).

Grace Lee Whitney (Yeoman Janice Rand ), b. 1 Apr 1930 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA) d. 1 May 2015 (Coarsegold, USA).

George Takei (Lt. Hikaru Sulu), b. 20 Apr 1937 (Los Angeles, USA) - Alive, 78. Helping Museum acquire WWII artifacts.

Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura), b. 28 Dec 1932 (Robbins, Illinois, USA) - Alive, 82. Attended Comic-Con in November and gave tribute to Leonard Nimoy.

Walter Koenig (Ensign Pavel Chekov), b. 14 Sep 1936 (Chicago, USA) - Alive, 78. Personal website not updated since January. Gave tribute to Nimoy in February.

Majel Barrett (Nurse Christine Chapel), b. 23 Feb 1932 (Columbus, USA) d. 18 Dec 2008 (Bel-Air, Los Angeles, USA)

[YoungWillz 21,050]

TNG:

 

Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard) b. 13 July 1940 (Mirfield, Yorkshire, UK).

Jonathan Frakes (Cmdr William T Riker) b. 19 August 1952 (Bellefonte, USA).

LeVar Burton (Lt. Cmdr Geordi La Forge) b. 16 February 1957 (Landstuhl, Germany).

Michael Dorn (Worf) b. 9 December 1952 (Luling, USA).

Gates McFadden (Dr Beverley Crusher) b. 2 March 1949 (Cyahoga Falls, USA).

Marina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi) b. 29 March 1955 (London, UK).

Brent Spiner (Lt Cmdr Data) b. 2 February 1949 (Houston, USA).

Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher) b. 29 July 1972 (Burbank, USA).

Denise Crosby (Security Chief Tasha Yar) b. 24 November 1957 (Hollywood, USA).

Diana Muldaur (Dr Katharine Pulaski) b. 19 August 1938 (New York City, USA).

Whoopi Goldberg (Guinan) b. 13 November 1955 (New York City, USA).

Dwight Schultz (Lt. Reg Barclay III) b. 24 November 1947 (Baltimore, USA).

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Now you have upset all us OCD people by doing Enterprise before DS9 and Voyager.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

 

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Now you have upset all us OCD people by doing Enterprise before DS9 and Voyager.

 

Ah, but they weren't Crew on the USS Enterprise, they were on Deep Space Nine and USS Voyager. I thought if I had done, the folks would have said "not crew".

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

 

 

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Enterprise:

 

Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) b. 9 October 1954 (St Louis, USA).

John Billingsley (Dr Phlox) b. 1959/1960 (Media, Pennsylvania, USA).

Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) b. 5 March 1975 (San Diego, USA).

Dominic Keating (Lt Malcolm Reed) b. 1 July 1962 (Leicester, UK).

Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather) b. 2 June 1971 (Indianapolis, USA).

Linda Park (Hoshi Sato) b. 9 July 1978 (Seoul, South Korea).

Connor Trinneer (Charles "Trip" Tucker III) b. 19 March 1969 (Walla Walla, USA).

 

Now you have upset all us OCD people by doing Enterprise before DS9 and Voyager.

 

Ah, but they weren't Crew on the USS Enterprise, they were on Deep Space Nine and USS Voyager. I thought if I had done, the folks would have said "not crew".

 

 

Point taken but I think this would be the place to discuss everything in the Star Trek universe.

 

I do hope you are not suggesting this site is populated by opinionated pedants.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Ha ha Bibliogryphon, not at all, not at all. Happy to do lists for DS9 and Voyager if you'd like. (Now I'll look a proper Charles Windsor Mountbatten for being over cautious).

[gcreptile 10,974]

These comments are asking for a little OCD:

 

Reginald Barclay (Dwight Schulz, born 1947) was part of the Enterprise TNG crew.

Or what about Q a.k.a. John De Lancie (born 1948)? He was sort-of part of the crew in one episode.

Or Commander Elizabeth Shelby from the Borg episodes (Elizabeth Dennehy, born 1960).

Then there was Captain Jelico, who replaced Captain Picard for a secret mission (in Romulan space if I recall correctly). He was played by Ronny Cox (born 1938). Though he might be a better candidate for the Deliverance thread on this forum.

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

Ha ha Bibliogryphon, not at all, not at all. Happy to do lists for DS9 and Voyager if you'd like. (Now I'll look a proper Charles Windsor Mountbatten for being over cautious).

 

To be honest I only watched TOS I tried both TNG & Voyager but they were lame. Babylon 5 was much better.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

These comments are asking for a little OCD:

 

Reginald Barclay (Dwight Schulz, born 1947) was part of the Enterprise TNG crew.

Or what about Q a.k.a. John De Lancie (born 1948)? He was sort-of part of the crew in one episode.

Or Commander Elizabeth Shelby from the Borg episodes (Elizabeth Dennehy, born 1960).

Then there was Captain Jelico, who replaced Captain Picard for a secret mission (in Romulan space if I recall correctly). He was played by Ronny Cox (born 1938). Though he might be a better candidate for the Deliverance thread on this forum.

I've stuck with main cast rather than recurring characters (otherwise we end up with eternal lists) though I'm sorely tempted to add Dwight to the TNG list. So I will. But I think other recurring characters like Worf's son, Deanna Troi's mother (well she's dead), Colm Meaney as Miles O'Brien and Q can be talked about more generally in context of the main cast.

 

BTW, TNG was my favourite, somehow it appealed to me better than the rest.