Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Sci-Fi

First Trek Film Footage Unveiled 320

Posted by CmdrTaco from the but-not-to-me dept.
Ostracus writes "Lost creator JJ Abrams has unveiled footage from his Star Trek prequel at a press event in London. The clips featured US actor Chris Pine as the young Captain Kirk, Heroes star Zachary Quinto as Mr Spock and Simon Pegg as Enterprise engineer Scotty. The audience also saw Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as the older Mr Spock in one of four excerpts from the film. In his introduction, Abrams said he wanted the film to be released in May 2009, to feel 'legitimate and real.' Speaking at London's Vue West End cinema on Tuesday morning, the film-maker admitted he had 'never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'" Note that the article doesn't actually contain the footage, just brief descriptions of it. The video clip included is just the old trailer that we saw many moons ago. But that won't stop me from lusting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Trek Film Footage Unveiled More

First Trek Film Footage Unveiled

Comments Filter:

  • Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:36AM (#25733919) Homepage Journal

    The REAL trailer is coming out in another five days. (Per startrekmovie.com [startrekmovie.com] where you can watch the previous trailer in HD.) Perhaps it would have been better to wait before proclaiming it? Or at least give useful information on the release date of the footage?

    The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.

    The new bridge was also revealed [slashfilm.com] about a month ago. Many refer to it as the "iBridge" because of its resemblance to Apple hardware. Personally, I'm mostly happy with the bridge design. It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

    I just wish they hadn't made a parody out of the old girl. :-(

    "Let's make sure history never forgets the name, Enterprise."
    --Captain Picard (Yesterday's Enterprise)

    • Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cosmocain ( 1060326 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:43AM (#25734015)

      Or at least give useful information [...]

      You must be new here.

    • Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:4, Funny)

      by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:50AM (#25734111)

      I looked at the picture of the Enterprise, the curves remind me of a 50's car. Less concern for functionality than for looking stylish.

      It is not like those curves are for aerodynamics!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by naz404 ( 1282810 )

      It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

      Hurrh? I still see no seatbelts... you'd think at the speeds they were going they'd be using crash seats and stuff...

      Expect the obligatory staggering about like drunken louts and bad camera shaking after the oblig hits to the Enterprise in ship-to-ship battles! :D

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bheer ( 633842 )

        @seatbelts:

        They apparently now have handrails [ew.com] to keep from falling.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

        Hurrh? I still see no seatbelts... you'd think at the speeds they were going they'd be using crash seats and stuff...

        Expect the obligatory staggering about like drunken louts and bad camera shaking after the oblig hits to the Enterprise in ship-to-ship battles! :D

        What about fuses or circuit breakers or other circuit-protection devices? You know, something that'll keep panels from exploding in a shower of sparks whenever the ship takes a hit? Sure it won't

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by crawling_chaos ( 23007 )
          Little known fact: warships' electrical systems have a set of switches that bypass the breakers/fuses for use while in combat. The risk of explosion is deemed less serious than the potential loss of function due to a breaker or fuse going during combat at a surge less than that which would cause total loss of the systems.

          • Re:Trailer Story FAIL (Score:5, Informative)

            by theaveng ( 1243528 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:42PM (#25736591)

            False.

            I have designed multiple weapons systems for the Navy and Army, and they DO have circuit breakers, because we don't want a 440 volt surge going through a 3.3 volt Pentium, now do we? No. That would be bad. It would mean you couldn't fire your missiles or point-defense systems because its CPU is now a small circle of molten plastic.

            We want the weapons to be as immune to electrical surges, shock, and vibration as possible. Even after the USS Cole was "mined" by local terrorists, our VLS System still had the ability to counterattack.

    • The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise [ew.com] was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.

      From TFA:
      "If you're going to do Star Trek, there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people."

      And so, naturally, they changed it. :D

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by christurkel ( 520220 )
      I don't think it's a parody. Its sleek and modern looking yet instantly recognizable as the original. I like the design.

    • Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @01:01PM (#25735007) Journal

      "I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy."

      Younger fans that don't give a crap about the franchise will love the new iLook, in all probability. But those of us that have been fans all our lives aren't going to like this very much. Most of us are, frankly, sick of the retconning in the cannon. We fought for years to get Rick Berman kicked out of the franchise for precisely this kind of garbage. "Canon? Fuck that! If we can eke out another Nielson's point or two, lets do yet another time travel story and totally screw the franchise history up! It'll be Die Hard on a Starship!"

      You'd expect some minor touchups to take advantage of current technology, but this is a complete retooling of the classic series, a reboot. Real longtime fans would probably be happier with Jim Cawley's New Voyages/Phase II [startreknewvoyages.com]. How ironic that an Elvis impersonator has more love and respect for the series than the current movie's creative team does.

      • I've been a Star Trek fan all my life...granted, I was raised on Next Generation, not the original series. Berman did screw up pretty badly (really? Borg before 1701-D met up with them?? pshaw). I guess that's the reason I'm cautiously optimistic to see a new take on Roddenberry's creation. Instead of pretending to follow canon, create a completely new one based on the same themes. Roddenberry had some good ideas, but I'm not averse to seeing what someone else can do with his ideas while not being tied down

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by theaveng ( 1243528 )

          Why not just make an entirely new show then? Call it "Space Journey". There's no need to ruin the current history (or make Scotty gay).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ifandbut ( 1328775 )

        The Original Series bridge looked like something strait out of the 70's, not sci-fi at all. It was just a bunch of shiny buttons that you have no clue what the purpose was.

        In the Next Generation the computers actually looked like computers that could function with the user knowing what they were doing. There is actually a LCARS Standards Development Board (however the site Wikipedia links to is off line). Heck, there is a trending and monitoring program we use at my work that has a LCARS style interface.

        Per

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by theaveng ( 1243528 )

          >>>The Original Series bridge looked like something strait out of the 70's...

          That's amazing considering it was made in 1965. Huh. Maybe Gene had a time travel device that let him peak into the disco era and copy it. /end sarcasm. THIS new movie ship will look like it was made somewhere around... 2010. And it will look very aged come 2020 or 2030.

    • I thought, "Oh please. How can they screw it up. It's the Enterprise."

      Aieee! That thing stinks of Hollywood's idea of cool; non-creative execs trying to cash in on the latest trend rather than allowing the real creative team to follow its natural instincts. That design has subtle alien qualities about it which spook me. And in any other film, that'd be fine. Sure. Whatever. But we already KNOW what the Enterprise looks like. That's why people want to watch it.

      Abrams is a first-rate ass. "Lost" is

  • 'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:42AM (#25733995)

    Good. The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.

    Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.

    • Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:19PM (#25734503)

      >> 'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.'

      I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.

      > The series has become a tired ass glorified fan flick from insiders.

      On the contrary. Star Trek I to VI were at least glorified fan flicks from insiders, from then on they tried to appeal to a more general public: Now they even lost that bit of appeal.

      On that note: Guess, who was responsible for those films.

      > Fresh blood and a new outlook sounds good to me.

      That is something I can perfectly agree on.

      • I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.

        Boy, he fucking proved that in spades. Especially with the help of Brannon Braga, whose Trek output was of a quality that, to this day, my circle of friends gladly use his surname to refer to the act of human solid elimination. (Unless it's a three-parter, in which case it is a 'Lucas').

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0racle ( 667029 )
      That attitude brought the world DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and other crapfests like Transformers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bbroerman ( 715822 )
          Personally, I liked all of them, with maybe the exception of Voyager. I did, however, miss a substantial portion of DS9, due to not having a UPN station when I moved to Cincinnati. I hear the final seasons sucked.

          Nonetheless, if you ignore the whole "temporal war" crap, Enterprise was OK. I liked the ship and the crew. Looked very reasonable for the era. Now, they did take liberties with the Klingons and Romulans. Neither were supposed to be warp capable as of yet. (non-cannon sources on Klingons along wi

    • Re:'Never really been a huge Star Trek fan.' (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bitrex ( 859228 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @01:08PM (#25735111)
      Whenever old material has been revived lately, "a new outlook" seems to have always translated to "An edgier, darker _____" which means "Make the cast younger, and ramp up the sexy and the violence."

  • Why do so many Trek personel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joeflies ( 529536 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:45AM (#25734045)

    make a point of saying "was never really a fan of the original show"? Maybe they really never saw it, but arent' they taking the fans for granted then? They don't know how important it is for us "TO NOT SCREW IT UP"?

    I understand a reboot of the series is sometimes necessary to make it fit contemporary audiences. But for every BSG, there are a hundred ruined series that chose to do something so out of character of the canon that it appeals to neither fans nor new audiences.

    • Just like any MMORPG franchise that claims they aren't trying to be or beat World of Warcraft.

      In other words, get in and apologize before it hits the fan then point back to the statement and date as somehow providing you cover.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bsharitt ( 580506 )

      I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        I'm personally expected Star Trek: The Phantom Menace.

        If Nemesis is any indication it won't be nearly that "good" :(

    • I don't think a reboot of classic trek is needed at all.

      I don't think reboots of classic series are needed.

      It stifles creativity. People need to come up with new things like Babylon 5 and Firefly.

      If the current "reboot" fad was the mentality in the sixties, we wouldn't have Star Trek at all, we would have Buck Rogers reboot (wait, we had that in the seventies... and it was NOT the quality of Star Trek).

      Reboots are about selling product, not creating art.

  • Zachary Quinto (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arizwebfoot ( 1228544 ) * on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:51AM (#25734119)
    Zachary Quinto is probably the most perfect person to play Spock in the prequel.

    If they do this right, there could be three, four, five, or six more movies to be made.

    If they do this right.

    • Re:Zachary Quinto (Score:5, Funny)

      by cosmocain ( 1060326 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:54AM (#25734161)
      the most perfect? are you more surer or is he maybe even more perfectererer?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by eln ( 21727 )

      If they wanted to start another Trek franchise as a prequel to the originals that they could go 5 or 6 movies with without bumping into the stuff that's already been made, they should have based it on Star Trek: Enterprise.

      I know that ST: Enterprise is almost Voyager-like in that a lot of people want to just forget it ever happened, but I thought it had a great deal of potential. Having movies based on it would be great. I thought the series really captured the naivete and hopefulness of a crew exploring

    • Judging by pictures alone (I've never seen any of these actors perform, so I have no idea if they can act), most of the cast looks perfect for their character... except Kirk. I have no idea how they fell flat on their face for the lead character, but he looks like a chump. It's awful.

    • No, he's not. As a vulcan, he ages much slower than humans, so, he would look about the same as when he was at the enterprise, considering that he was at the academy at the same time as Kirk which, for starters, I find weird.

  • If the post is about a new trailer, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the trailer for viewing?

    I hold this up there with the articles about images that don't even show the images. A WASTE OF TIME!

  • JJ Abrams (Score:3, Funny)

    by Andr T. ( 1006215 ) <`andretaff' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @11:52AM (#25734141)
    Ok, this may sound childish, but I fear I might hate Spock being locked in a planet with polar bears, killing smoke and never-ending nonsense.

  • The new Enterprise looks neat, but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced, because the part of my brain that can explain away the differences ("Obviously, they did another refit between when this was shot and when Pike was captain, yeah, that's it!") would have trouble understanding why the entire shape of that secondary hull is so different.

    But then again, I don't want to be one of those sad Battlestar Galactica fans who still hate the new series because they DAR

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      but the fanboy in me wishes the change to the secondary hull hadn't been so pronounced

      The fanboy in me wishes that they had stopped at "All Good Things...", and that Voyager and Enterprise had never happened.

      Oh well. It can't possibly suck as much as the new Babylon 5 offering [wikipedia.org] did.... Who would have thought that JMS would stomp all over his universe for a cheap vomit joke.

  • Continuity problems already (Score:4, Insightful)

    by viridari ( 1138635 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:01PM (#25734235)

    Kirk is subsequently seen being smuggled on board the Starship Enterprise on its maiden voyage by doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by Karl Urban.

    McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org].

    And as others have mentioned in comments to previous stories here, Chekov wasn't on the Enterprise until later on well after Kirk took command. He really doesn't fit into this movie.

    And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

    • And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?

      Yeah, they've never done something like that [memory-alpha.org] before.

    • Kirk is subsequently seen being smuggled on board the Starship Enterprise on its maiden voyage by doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played by Karl Urban.

      McCoy isn't the original ship's surgeon on the Enterprise. I guess nobody who worked on the film ever saw The Cage [wikipedia.org].

      They're not following canon at all, they're re-booting the series.

      The canonization of the 20 year history of the Enterprise before Kirk took command was mainly just a way to recycle the pilot episode that used a different cast and FX model. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the best thing for the story to keep that around in a reboot.

    • Re:Continuity problems already (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:48PM (#25734863) Homepage

      > And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?

      I know! And I heard that the guy who's playing Spock isn't even a real alien!

    • What makes you think they care about continuity? As much as JJ Abrams is hyped to be a great sci-fi writer, it's obvious he didn't know and didn't care about the history of the series. And in Star Trek, the history of the series... the canon, if you will, is very, very important to Trek fans.

      I think this movie will appeal to teenagers who don't know and don't care about Star Trek. But it's looking like it'll absolutely horrify the rest of us with it's typical Hollywoodish "who gives a fuck about the detail

    • And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

      Picard was an English Frenchman. They're just continuing the storyline...

    • Re:Continuity problems already (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kozz ( 7764 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @01:17PM (#25735259)

      And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF? I guess they are depending on the old cracker saying "what's the difference?"

      No kidding. It'd be as silly as an Irish Canadian [wikipedia.org] playing a Scotsman, an Englishman [wikipedia.org] playing a Frenchman, an American [wikipedia.org] playing a Russian. ;)

    • Not only haven't they seen the Cage, they apparently haven't seen Where No Man Has Gone Before, where the Enterprise had a completely different CMO even with Kirk in command. There also hasn't been any reference to Gary Mitchell, who's another key figure who should be aboard for Kirk's first mission.

    • You do know that they are trying to reboot the series like BSG did right? I mean starbuck wasn't a chick originally in that series either. They are setting out to change the cannon of the franchise a little bit and frankly I think it needs it. There hasn't been a really good ship and crew story since TNG (voyager was good but it was different than the ship and crew in starfleet).

      So yeah they can pretty much do what ever they want, McCoy wasn't on the ship when the TOS started kirk wasn't in the pilot eith

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by raddan ( 519638 )
      wrt, Chekov-- Chekov was not in TOS episode "Space Seed", and yet, here he is at the beginning of The Wrath of Khan "remembering" the Enterprise's encounter with Khan. So the continuity has already been fucked-up there. It has simply been assumed that Chekov was on the Enterprise but not a major player at the time. I am OK with this.

      I am less OK with the new-old Enterprise. WHY? Seriously, all you're doing is begging the real fans to hate your movie. But I am excited about Zachary Quinto and Simon

    • J.J Abrams cares very little for canon (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RudeIota ( 1131331 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @05:25PM (#25738917) Homepage
      http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20007719,00.html [ew.com]

      After his panel at the New York Times' 6th Annual Arts & Leisure Weekend, EW sat down with Mission: Impossible III helmer and Lost creator J.J. Abrams to get an inside look at his new enterprise: a Star Trek movie. While it isn't clear when we can expect to see the film, which will be the 11th in the series, he confirmed a draft of the script is done, and it will be trimmed sometime soon.

      So what, exactly, will be the plot? Early reports (like this one in Variety) said that it will focus on the young, post-Starfleet Academy days of James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, but Abrams wouldn't specify. Still, he assured us it's a story that even non-Trekkers can enjoy. ''On the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying,'' he says. ''For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.''

  • Don't read these unless you want the storyline (Score:3, Informative)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:04PM (#25734303) Homepage
    There are a couple other sites that give a lot more detail on the clips that were shown. From the description it seems easy to piece together the overall storyline of the film. If you don't want to know what the storyline is then don't read these links

    http://denofgeek.com/movies/144620/star_trek_four_full_scenes_and_new_trailer_reviewed.html [denofgeek.com] http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313 [empireonline.com]
  • ... producers would stop obsessing about the original series, and make like ... an updated Star Trek movie ??

    Maybe with the casts of TNG and DS9 ??

    I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other trekkies who love the newer stuff, but don't give a damn about the old material ...

    *raises hand*

    Its interesting because in the Slashdot poll of Which Trek is Best [slashdot.org], the original series actually lost to DS9. If Slashdot isn't a place to guage this sorta thing ... you couldn't do it anywhere else.

  • Soaring Heights (Score:3, Funny)

    by speroni ( 1258316 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:23PM (#25734571) Homepage

    This really brings "News for Nerds" to a whole new level....

  • construction of the enterprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @12:26PM (#25734605)

    I liked how the original trailer looked like a Rammstein video, iron workers constructing the ship by hand on a planetbound spacedock.

    Strangely enough, our modern warships are essentially built by hand because the volumes aren't large enough to warrant assembly lines with robots. The ships are built in large assemblies that are joined together, huge machines moving the parts but humans inspecting every piece as they go together. But trying to model the construction of a futuristic starship after a modern-day navy vessel is about as silly as modeling space combat tactics after WWII....ok, yeah, they do it but it's still silly! Though I did dearly love the depth-charging scene from the Wing Commander movie, especially the part about the crew having to remain silent so the Kilrathi couldn't hear them, presumably on space sonar. :)

    But aside from the issue of how the pieces would be put together on a starship, there's the question of where it would be built. Trek has always had a thing for spacedocks in space. I remember asking my dad questions when we were watching Trek and was amazed when he told me the ship could never land. It blew my mind to think of a ship built in space, always in space, never landing.

    Anyway, I wonder just how awful this movie will end up being. Is it considered an even or odd-numbered film?

    • Re:construction of the enterprise (Score:4, Informative)

      by bitrex ( 859228 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @01:20PM (#25735307)
      Another thing that got glossed over in the TNG films is just how long it supposedly took to construct a Galaxy-class starship. A long time ago I owned a copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual, and it had a timeline of the construction process for the Enterprise D. If I'm remembering correctly it took the better part of 40 years to complete a Galaxy class ship. Building a single one would be a huge multi-generational task, which is why it's understandable the Federation Council would have been pretty pissed at Kirk after Star Trek 3. In the TNG movies it seems like they blow one up every installment.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bbroerman ( 715822 )
        If I remember the tech manual correctly, though, most of that time was in research and design of the new engines and systems. The Enterprise D was a big departure from previous ships in its engineering, and internal structure... even if the exterior did look a lot alike.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )

      Anyway, I wonder just how awful this movie will end up being. Is it considered an even or odd-numbered film?

      First Contact was the last even-numbered film.

  • in that they make the Prequels better than the Original films.

    Otherwise it will become another Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and mess up some of the continuity in the original films and TV series, and have a plot that does not make sense, and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting.

    At least make the Prequel better than the Star Wreck [starwreck.com] parody. I am sorry to say but Even Stark tre [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hal2814 ( 725639 )

      "and acting that was not as good as the originals as they are using new actors and actresses that hardly anyone heard of before and have not yet fully learned the art of acting."

      I was going to write a snarky comment about how little experience the original series actors had before Star Trek but blimey if all of the main characters (Nimoy, Shatner, Kelley, and Doohan) all had a significant number of roles under their belts by then. But then I checked the new and old actors' profiles on the IMDB. Chris Pine

  • The Problem For Me is The Story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vortran ( 253538 ) <aol_is_satan@hotmail.com> on Wednesday November 12, 2008 @02:55PM (#25736789) Homepage

    Good entertainment has always been about the story, but I believe Star Trek also has to be futuristic in a high-minded sort of way.

    As a lifetime fan (been watching since NBC carried ToS), I am interested in seeing some of the intrigue pan out.

    Specifically:
          What about the Crystalline Entity? Other members of this species. Where is it now?
          Speaking of species, how about Species 8472?
          What ever happened to Wesley and the traveller? Where are they now?
          Data/Lore? Dare I mention the Borg?
          Q? I sure have missed John de Lancie.
          What about Warp 10 and Tom Paris' ground-breaking work there?
          What about the time-traveling Federation that gave 'The Doctor' his portable holo-emitter? I sure would like to see THAT Federation!!

    The point is that there is so much fodder for a good story - something that could easily by filled in for newcomers, that I don't understand why all this is being ignored (example: Nemesis and this new one which I don't think I even want to see).

    What I've seen since 'First Contact' has been just plain depressing.

    Vortran out

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close