Yeah, the real criticism of Zachary Quinto as Spock was that he killed so many other of the crew members and stole their powers. He was stone-cold evil.

That's one of the reasons why I love "Parks and Recreation". Yes, the characters have flaws, and there was conflict, although not a whole lot, but the show focused primarily on the good relationships among the characters. I think "Community" follows the same pattern. Both shows are the anti-"Seinfeld" where the most important aspects of the characters are their good traits, not their bad ones.

The characters in JJTrek, on the other hand, were pretty much cyphers, just stereotypes of the original characters, flat 2D versions. Some of the actors did a fine job with what they were given, especially Karl Urban, but none of the characters themselves were memorable, except in as much as they were pale echoes of the originals.

The Spock character was developed for literally decades, and in the movies he experienced his best and most interesting growth as a character, thanks in no small part to Nimoy's superb acting. This is a character we grew up with, but also a character who "grew up" himself, and so the legacy of the character, and the actor who brought him to life is immense. In contrast, the new movies are nothing but 90-minute segments of visual Ritalin, incoherent and completely forgettable. I'll take the worst Star Trek episodes (and there were some real stinkers, I cannot overstate this) over this shiny blue mess any day, because as bad as those episodes were, at least they were trying to do something other than be flickering lights and noise and demos for the latest CGI software.

I would believe that prediction even if I weren't a Christian.

You can actually do the same thing in Python.

I'd pay to see those stretch goats.

"Voyager" would have worked if the writers would have cut back severely on the booze. Kate Mulgrew is a fine actress, but the writing for her character was wildly inconsistent and the writing for the show varied between "going through the motions" and "people actually got paid for this crap?". If there was ever a by-the-numbers, we-can't-upset-the-status-quo-one-iota television show, it was "Voyager". You can go back and watch "Gilligan's Island" reruns and there is a more realistic chance that the castaways will get rescued in every single episode than there will be in the Voyager crew making any meaningful progress in getting back to Earth, until the finale-decreed deus ex machina.

If your brain did work, you'd likely have better appreciation for classic cinema, and if you still didn't like it, your criticisms would be more meaningful than "they are so terrible", therefore I conclude there is no evidence to back up your assertion.

I thought you were being sarcastic to make a point in the first paragraph.

In the second, I realized that maybe you weren't and I feel very sad for you. What do you like? Michael Bay movies?

Maybe not to you, but I've seen the three episodes of "Star Trek Continues" and I thought they were great. Yes, the acting the isn't always the best, but the effort faithfully created the look and feel of the original show and the stories were really good. You might not like it or think it's a good idea, but other people, like me, disagree with you, and are willing to finance the project so that it can continue. Therefore, it is a good idea.

Gee, a television show shouldn't feature its stars performing most of the action? The thing that ticks me off more than anything else about criticism of shows like Star Trek is people who refuse to acknowledge the trade-offs that needed to be made to make a _television show_ 50 years ago. Sure, let's have Ensign Ricky and a team of redshirts we don't care about be the away team because that's more realistic, and no one is interested in watching the show.

Says the Anonymous Coward. Being an Anonymous Coward surrenders your right to share an opinion and have anyone care about it.

Star Trek was fine science fiction, but it was soft science fiction, and the science part of the fiction wasn't often the core of the story, nor what made the show good.

Star Trek had plenty of cool ideas that have become reality, but every one of those ideas existed before Star Trek... it just made them more widely known, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it inspired all those ideas.

Exactly. This experiment is just that, an experiment. If it works, it will show evidence of something predicted by these multiverse theories based on inflation, and provides an interesting and important new data point. If it doesn't it doesn't disprove anything because it's still a guess.

There are so many weird and previously unexpected things that were predicted by theory and only then discovered: variations in orbits due to the curvature of spacetime (predicted by relativity and confirmed by studying the orbit of Mercury), the existence of neutrinos, the cosmic background radiation, a lot of other stuff from the Standard Model that I don't recall because I'm not an expert...

Sure, except the main reason ISIS is a problem now is because of the U.S. We broke it; we bought it.