By Chris S. (Fez) (68.71.243.58) on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 11:02 pm:

My expectations were so low, I actually enjoyed the movie. As for the effects, the moving- mattepainting style shots of the Romulan senate and the dilithium slave mines were awesome.

The Enterprise on the other hand looked like a nostalgiac nod to the original cardboard model. Though it was not completely unconvincing, it seemed like a step back from the enterprises of some of the earlier films. But hey, the ship would definitely impress if it was displayed in the front window of an origami shop.

By Zack Cork (Ep_Shot) (172.144.2.160) on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 05:18 pm:

those romulan warbird shots were so freiking awsome.

By Karl Stocker (Pixeltek) (65.58.169.207) on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 07:21 pm:

...ok, ok, the VFX were excellent (to be expected nowadays), but the story totally sucked. Most (if not all) TV episodes had more storyline than this thing. Nemesis is a total failure IMO and I hope the end of the line for this very tired and overpaid crew.

Having said that, I admit to greatly enjoying the new Enterprise series. It is refreshing in its personal interactions, very much capturing the spirit of the original ST - with Jolene Blalok's T-Pol an eye-pleasing improvement over good old Mr. Spok.

By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 12:24 pm:

I've been wondering if Nemesis would be any good. Sounds like the latest (last?) Trek movie will be like the first; a bad, overly long episode.

As for Enterprise, I had high hopes for it, and loved the intro sequence, but grew bored with it. I was disappointed in Bakula's portrayal of the captain. I couldn't help but imagine Harry Dean Anderson (Macguyver, Stargate) as a much better captain. With Bakula as the captain, I had to wonder how Starfleet went from being like TNG's uptight world, to TOS, and back to TNG again.

As for T-pol... I wish they'd named her T-Pao. Would have been a nice tie-in, relating her to the old grande dame who oversaw Spock's fight with Kirk.
As for eye-pleasing... big breasts do not a pretty girl make. An ugly gal with big tits is still an ugly gal. I used to hope to find a pic of the actress out of makeup, to find out if she only looks that way because of the way they made her up... I hope so. I can't wait til they put an alien in the crew with blue scales, a cockscomb, but huge ta-tas, so that the fans and crew can rave about how beautiful it is.

By a morano (Amorano) (65.222.106.108) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 02:34 pm:

Its not Harry Dean Anderson, its Richard Dean Anderson.

And the Deluise brothers work (Stargate series) is still the absolute best scifi on tv today, with Oddessy 5 picking itself up nicely.

By Chuck Baker (Cbaker) (207.235.86.2) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:40 pm:

Now we know the answer to the question, "What do you get when you cross Harry Dean Stanton and Richard Dean Anderson?"

I do like Enterprise, though they haven't quite done as well on the stories as I'd hoped, given that they showed some great potential in the pilot and in some of the episodes in the first season. T'Pol is not ugly, in or out of make-up, but that's just MHO. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.25) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 06:51 am:

My wife and I liked Nemesis quite a lot. One thing that kept running through my head was, "Oh my God, they've created Minnie-Me!"

As to Enterprise, I like it, don't neccesarily go out of my way to watch it right now. I've found that Star trek series get better with age, they usually get a lot better around the third season. My wife and I became addicted to Voyager repeats that came on nightly a few years back. I like T'pol/Jolene's face. Granted she has an unusual look, but she's far from ugly.



Funny thing is, I'd see Roxanne Dawson from Voyager on other shows or in pictures without her Klingon head ridges, and she didn't look AS attractive to me! I know, pretty odd...

By Chris S. (Fez) (68.71.243.58) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 07:29 am:

"I'd see Roxanne Dawson from Voyager on other shows or in pictures without her Klingon head ridges, and she didn't look AS attractive to me!"

Haha, that's hysterical Matt. If your lucky, on your next anniversary Mrs. Clary will go "slip into something more comfortable" and come back wearing nothing but Klingon head ridges.

I think Voyager had some great stories. I was so sorry to see ANOTHER familiar cast of characters go that I never really gave Enterprise a chance. However, after seeing Nemesis, I realized that despite all of the movies major flaws and stale Star Trek sequences, I still enjoy the Star Trek universe.

By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.114) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 10:36 am:

My wife is actually going to a Sci-Fi convention because James Marsters (Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is going to be there. A friend of hers is going with her, I told my wife they had to get a picture wearing Vulcan ears for me to put on my desk! This is pretty hilarious to me, because neither my wife nor her friend are the type of geek you would expect to see at a sci-fi convention.

By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:49 am:

A sci-fi convention as opposed to a science fiction convention, I suppose?

Uhh, in the show, she's ugly. Tastes vary, and lack of taste is common, however. Of course, I would have an unusual look too, if you hung big breasts on me. But I guess I'd still be far from ugly to someone (shudder). If that's a picture of her in real-life, she's not ugly. She's not really pretty, either, though. Kind of boyish. And it would take too long to explain why it's understandable a boyish look in a female would be considered attractive in today's society...

I admit to being prejudiced against the whole Star Drek world. I think it's done irreparable harm to generations. Not just because of its vision of the future, but because reality can't match it. Let's face it, there's nothing special effects can't do, and for the sake of FX thrills, they've done it all. Not to mention that it's made us mentally unprepared for any possible real future, by promoting visions of an eternally PC future (or as Orwell put it, "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face...forever".) What thrill is there in watching a real man walk on the moon at the price of billions of dollars, when for a few million you can watch a guy make out with an 8-vaginaed octopus-creature on a planet that could only exist in a computer?

At the turn of the decade between the late 70s and early 80s, Star Drek the Motion Picture came out. Star Bores had just come out with its special effects and medieval-meets-WWII-meets-Asian-mythology space opera motif. Female sci-fi authors were being promoted by the "old pros", authors who generally wrote fantasy rather than science fiction, for the sake of PC (more important to have successful female Sci-fi authors than real, hard science fiction.) And I've still yet to see the female equivalent of Heinlein or Asimov or George O. Smith. But I digress...

I liked Kate Mulgrew a lot; she's why I watched PMS Voyeur to begin with. That series had maybe 3 good SF episodes, the rest was PC claptrap and stereotyping. (One of those episodes is where I dubbed Harry Kim "Wee Willie Winkie" and he bcame my 2nd favorite character.) TNG was laughable most of the time, and would have done a service with a more chilling comparision between the borg and the Federation (they came very close a couple times, but always pulled the punch.) And I will never, ever forgive or forget the bigotted, Politically Correctly sanctioned characature that was the Ferenghi. First they are described as cowardly, provincial, and as crooked as a dog's hind leg. They're made-up to be among the most repulsive creatures in the Star Drek universe, *then* they're referred to as "yankee-traders" and portrayed as the ultimate (corrupt) capitalists. Rudyard Kipling is one of my favorite authors, and in the appendix of a book of his poems it translates several of the non-English words used in his poems (as well as Anglo-specific slang.) One of the words it described was the word "Ferenghi", which was a term the Afghan tribes used to describe the men from Europe. There could be no doubt to anyone who knew, that this was a left-wing slander against capitalism and the west. Funny how people complained of the original series and its stereotypical portrayal of the mongol-looking Klingons, yet ate this drivel up with a spoon. How you going to finance the future when you've prejudiced everyone against the only way to fund it?

The worst of them all, of course, was DS9, which gave up any pretense of serious science fiction, using the Star Drek universe as a platform for PC propoganda and hedonistic excess. What more can be said about a tv series in which a member of a bi-sexual species falls in love with and goes through a mating ritual with a bucket of snot?

By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:55 am:

I looked at that picture again. I placed my hand just below her nose. She has pretty eyes, and suddenly was less boyish-looking and more attractive. Not beautiful by any stretch, but better.

By Rob Trombino (Extrabyte) (209.6.255.51) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 02:35 pm:

Mr. Williams.

Hello, McFly!

These are scifi television shows for fun and entertainment.

Which also occasionally make a statement on the stupidity and absurdity of our current state of life on this planet.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion of course.

And I would never call you a moron simply because of your opinion. I would instead wait for you to demonstrate that behavior on a more consistent basis.

By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 01:54 pm:

Extrabyte, if my observations make me a moron, your conclusion makes you an ostrich. There hasn't been a thing on American television or in the movies for the past 30 years that wasn't, to one degree or another, for one purpose or another, propoganda. Be it the establishment of new stereotypes, ridicule of old stereotypes, reinforcing politically correct points that everyone knows must be true (there's a certain market value in this; people are comforted by having their preconceptions validated in their entertainment, even if those preconceptions are artificially induced in the first place,) no one makes a movie or story anymore without a "message".

The greatest damage Star Drek has done is because it's "sci-fi" as you put it, and not science fiction. The Trek universe is the 18,000 lb gorilla jumping up and down on Clarke's 3rd Law.

Imagine relating the story of the Alamo with Davey Crockett taking to the parapet with his magic wand. Or a story about WWII fighter pilots who fly, not planes, but broomsticks. That's *fantasy*, not science fiction.

Star Drek, from its inception, was put out by left-wing liberals, with the intent of using the show to promote PC ideals, not to tell stories. Even Star Bores wasn't quite as bad in the first movies, beyond promoting the absurd notion that technology is evil. Vader's rebreather, the "bad guys" using guns while the good guys use magic swords, mechanical hand replacements instead of biological ones (because some morons might not get that biotech is also tech,) cute fuzzy primitives defeating a high-tech army in a set-piece battle (something that's never happened in the real world, because it's an absurd notion.) Hate and anger leading to the "dark" side and making one evil, Shen appropriated from Taoism and promoted as "the force" (imagine the outrage if at the final battle between the Emperor and Luke, Christ were to appear and with a wave of His hand send the Emperor straight to hell... too unPC to be tolerated, but no less nonsensical.)

It's a fine line science fiction walks; science fiction is based upon asking, "what if?", and too often the exploration is yanked short or steered by the political or social views of the writer. Or in the case of tv/movies, the views of the director, producer, actors, and production execs.

"What if..." the U.S. stayed out of WWII... and Ghandi faced German SS instead of Brits? A Roddenberry-inspired version would have Ghandi winning, through goodness and tolerance. Turtledove's actual story "The Last Article", much more realistic, ended with Ghandi on his way out to be shot while the German commander sat down to enjoy his breakfast. Nor were the Germans portrayed as stupid, mindless, faceless, sadistic, or insane, as would be required in a Roddenberry-esque telling of the tale.

Heinlein did write one rather popular (at the time) propoganda piece, back in his day. Starship Troopers portrayed *his* view of an idealized society. Strangely, in spite of its popularity, it never made it onto the big screen or even television... until a left-wing despotic piece of Eurotrash named Veerhoven reversed all the principles in the book, making a farce of the story. Let's see.. Star Drek promotes the left-wing PC view of the world, it's given acclaim and support (even when it sucks), Heinlein's book reveals the fallacy of the left-wing PC view, and when it finally makes it to the screen becomes a farce debasing the actual points Heinlein tried to make.
Barry B. Longyear wrote a wonderful story called "Enemy Mine" that dealt with bigotry and cultural conflict in an intelligent and engaging way. It didn't condemn bigotry; it showed it for what it was. In the end of the book, the human protagonist, after being essentially driven from human society for his knowledge of and affection for the alien "Draks", rescues the child of his alien counterpart from a mental hospital in its own world, where it was consigned quietly for its proclamation of love for the human that raised it.
Not once it reached the silver screen, oh no. The ending there had the human rescuing the poor Drak from a slave-labor camp, run by (capitalistic) humans. Why change the story, unless you want to promote the metaphorical idea that only one side can be hateful bigots? I'll let you figure out the metaphor for yourself.
The sci-fi channel (which shows more horror and fantasy than science fiction) made a program entitled "The Cold Equations" based upon the story by the same name. In the story, an emergency delivery ship (with 2 rooms) is making a delivery of a needed serum to a colony world. It has just enough fuel to get there. It can't get back to the cruise liner it left from. The pilot discovers that he has a stowaway in the cargo room. The rules say, toss him out, shoot him if necessary, because you need the fuel his mass is eating up.
But the stowaway is a sweet, young, innocent, poor girl, who snuck aboard to visit her brother on the planet the EDS ship was headed for. She must be ejected, but she's innocent, she's sweet, she's everything that men have fought and died to protect and provide-for since the species began. He doesn't want to kill her. The authorities on the liner don't want to kill her. The colonists at his destination don't want to kill her. But she must die. She spends her last hours weeping, discussing the harshness of reality with the pilot, having a heart-wrenching conversation with her brother, and then she accepts her fate and steps into the airlock. End of story, wipe away the tears. One of the most moving stories I've ever read.
In the trailers for the tv-version, they show her in hand-to-hand combat with the pilot. They turn a tragedy into just another lifeboat melodrama. Why? Because modern PC cannot tolerate the idea of "...she's innocent, she's sweet, she's everything that men have fought and died to protect and provide-for since the species began. " Because today's pravda is that women are just men with internal sex organs. Can't offend the feminazis by suggesting any frontier future in which women are once again protected and provided for. And nobody cares about offending dinosaurs who don't think there's much purpose to fighting if it's not to provide for and protect the women and children.
Naw.. nobody in the entertainment media is attempting to propogandize a PC view, it's *pure* paranoia.

"...How can the attitudes of 200 million people be switched on and off like a light bulb? How can one set of facts be made to produce three widely differing Pravdas? By complete control of all communications from the cradle to the grave.
" Almost all Soviet women work. Their babies are placed in kindergartens at an average age of 57 days, so we were told, and what we saw supported the allegation. We visited several kindergartens, on collective farms and in factories. By the postd schedules, these babies spend 13 and 1/2 hours each day in kindergarten- they are with their mothers for perhaps an hour before bedtime.
" At the Forty-years-of-October Collective Farm outside Alma Ata some of the older children in one of the kindergartens put on a little show for us. One little girl recited a poem. A little boy gave a prose recitation. The entire group sang. The children were clean and neat, healthy and happy. Our guide translated nothing, so superficially, it was the sort of bequiling performace one sees any day in any American kindergarten.
" However, my wife understands Russian:
" The poem recounted the life of Lenin
" The prose recitation concerned how "we must protect our Revolution"
" These tots were no older than six.
" That is how it is don.e Starting at the cradle, never let them hear anything but the official version. Thus "pravda" becomes "truth" to the Russian children."
- Robert A. Heinlein '"Pravda" Means "Truth"' from Expanded Universe (Pravda, more accurately, meant "propoganda" in 1963 when the above was written)

This is how a U.S. Senator can be villified for heresy and blasphemy in a nation that rejects the notion of heresy and blasphemy. How much time do kids spend with day-care "professionals" (who may be anything from a mindless teenager to a licensed professional, but such professions are dominated by those holding liberal values.)How much TV do U.S. kids watch a day? What is portrayed?
Name one sci-fi program that segregates humans from aliens? The idea of mating with an alien, for example, should be as absurd as the idea of mating with a horse or python (or a bucket of snot). Yet most all sci-fi shows, from Star Drek to wannabes like Farscape, promote this absurd notion. Even a worthwhile show like Babylon 5 couldn't avoid it. Is it merely an appeal to hedonism, or is it propoganda metaphor? (remember, propoganda isn't lies; it's arguments made to promote a cause or position. They can be true, false, absurd or rational.)

Star Drek contradicts itself, because the view it must promote is absurd; at one point the Federation has no need of money, and yet obviously they have to engage in trade with other societies, and even make passing references to such. It is an absurd notion that capitalism will die in 300 years in human society. But what philosophy promotes the suppression of capitalism? I'll give you a hint... it ain't *right-wing*. You can't point to an episode of any of Star Drek that interacts with a successful corporate society such as that found in "Oath of Fealty". Whenever they stray close to portraying capitalism in a good light, there's always a hidden evil to be revealed. The storylines aren't perfectly predictable because they're mundane. They're perfectly predictable because there are only a certain set of conclusions that they storylines are able to achieve and remain PC.

It may be moronic to point out that the views of those who decide what goes on the air affects the content of what goes on the air, but it's foolish to contentedly suggest that everything on the air is "just entertainment". If it's just entertainment, how come I never see science fiction on tv, instead of "sci fi"?

What I would give to see "Fallen Angels" on the sci fi channel.... unchanged from the book, that is. Never happen, of course.

By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

ouch!

By Ernest Miron (Ernest) (196.40.0.106) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 05:24 pm:

Being a sci-fi writer myself (and I don't find the terms sci-fi and science fiction irreconcilable), I can tell you that your conspiracy theory is wrong on several accounts.

You make it sound like sci-fi is a leftist conspiracy to indoctrinate the human race from its infancy. The truth is that most sci-fi is not written "for" someone(s) but for ourselves. We don't write to try to convince anyone of anything. We write because the world is not enough; because reality does not satisfy us anymore. We write the adventures we'd like (change that to -we need-)to live, in the universe where we'd like to live them.

The first law a writer must follow is to write about the things he knows. Most characters and events are based on characters and events that we've known, experienced or read about. It's only natural that the ideologies and inter-personal relationships that we write about are also based on ideologies and relationships that we know or have read about. It is not an indoctrination attempt. It is just the essence of who we are and what we know that permeates our work.
So are most writers left wing? I think that if someone firmly believes in the traditional capitalistic right-wing ideology, it's rather unlikely that he'd end up working in a non-business branch of creative entertainment. The more extreme right would be more inclined to participate in this field (like Heinlein, Riefenstahl, etc.) Leftists do seem to be more logically inclined to the field. However, when we talk stricly about science fictions writers I think that it's a bit different.

Good sci-fi writing requires a minimum of resoning capabilities. It is hard for someone who has a minumum of reasoning capabilities to believe in (much less to follow) any political ideology (especially because they're not meant to be followed). Ideologies -in my view and that of many other sci-fi writers I've talked with- are generalizations based on specific answers proposed for specific problems. To accept the generalizations as a good general solution for all situations seems as ridiculous as rejecting the specific solutions for specific problems that they offer.

So, are we crippled by PC-ectedness? Yes, but probably not as much as you think. Regarding women, a bullet shot by the weakest woman is just as strong as a bullet shot by the strongest man (this applies even more to energy beams since they have 0 recoil). So it makes it hard to believe, in my view, that in the future there will still be remnants of the gender based discrimination that arose during the muscle-powered-weapons era. So that happens to be a PC view? I'm not backing off because of that. I wouldn't back off if it wasn't PC either. In fact Rodenberry's women started being modern PC before it was PC to portray women that way. He had to replace his first "Number One" because even the women sent massive complaints. But the reason for protraying women that way is not propaganda. It is simply the portrayal of our vision of the logical evolution of thought, of the women we know, and of ourselves, in the universe where we'd like our adventures to take place. If someone is influenced by my vision or not, or if someone interprets my vision incorrectly, I couldn't care less. All I care is that they can enjoy the adventure as much as I did. I would only debate a misinterpretation of the ideologies within my stories if they affected the enjoyment of the adventure. For example, I interpreted Star Wars a little differently from you. I thought they didn't promote that technology was eivil but mechanization. "Technology is good as long as it serves it's creators and it becomes eivil when it subdues the creators and maked them the servants". But the difference in interpretation shouldn't affect the enjoyment of the story so it really doesn't matter.
Davey Crockett and WWII fighters would look silly wielding magic weapons because all historiacal sources tell us that it didn't happen that way. King Arthur an be protrayed wielding a wooden lance or a magical sword and it doesn't look silly either way because historical sources disagree on the way it happened. In the case of the future, there is no historical evidence at all, so we can't be sure of exacly what breaks Clarke's 3rd.

On films is where I tend to agree more but not so much in the ideological sense as in the incompetence and cowardice sense. I don't think that jewels like Enemy Mine (yes that was also way up there in my all-time top 10 list) are butchered in their film versions in an attempt to spread leftist propaganda but rather, in fear of loosing a few ticket sales. So, it is actually the right wing, capitalists that are provoking the left wing propaganda? I think we're all right wing capitalists (even Oliver Stone) in a degree because the financial success of a movie or book is the only way to measure how good our work really was. And we're all left wing liberals to a degree because you can't be a successful capitalist otherwise. The ironly is that most movies that are watered down to ensure financial success are duds and movies in which the director risks everything to provide a no-hold-barred version tend to be the most successful.

By Rob Trombino (Extrabyte) (209.6.255.51) on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 09:31 pm:

Jim, I know your not a moron.

But did it ever occur to you that we watch things like Star Trek & Star Wars because it's simply a way to escape for an hour or two? Besides, I thought we were here to talk about Lightwave and special efx and how fun it is to be learning about 3D and how we all wish we were hanging out in New Zealand over at Weta working on Lord of the Rings and why it's taking George Lucas forever to release the Indiana Jones movies on DVD and . . . . .

By Matt Clary (Mattclary) (208.255.196.43) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 07:03 am:

Ernest, you need to go back and read Jim's message again. He never said sci-fi (science fiction) is PC, he said most science fiction on TV and the big screen are PC. he made the point that some really good science fiction has been bastardized by Hollywood for the sake of being PC.

Jim, I agree with most everything you said, I'm a definite righty, and am constantly angered by the obvious slant of most TV shows and movies. However, I still like Star Trek and think Jolene is kinda hot.

By Ernest Miron (Ernest) (196.40.0.106) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:01 pm:

But what I wrote didn't mean to defend s-f from supposed PC-edness accusations. In fact I agree that most s-f, be it written, aired or screened is quite PC (even mine). As Jim stated in "Heinlein DID write ONE rather popular (at the time) propoganda piece, back in his day" (the all-caps are mine)-- it is an exception when someone writes one non-PC propaganda piece. And I also agree that it tends to make entertainment more dull than entertaining because some exciting possibilities are NOT... *posibilities*.
My disagreement is in the motivation. My point was that the reason for the PC-edness is not to impose left wing views on the masses of the world. It's just a)the author living his adventures where he wants to, b)ideology being a part of the author/director's "self" that permeates his work, c)cowardice and d)financial considerations. These four points are all aimed "into" the creator, not "at" the audience.
I mean, please, Veerhoven of all people(!) doesn't have the intellect nor the refinement to be a spokesman for any ideology. His directoral skills are not aimed at expressing ideas but just at greasing every shot so that the friction of "thinking" doesn't detract from the all-important "action". Purely capitalistic financial considerations; no big Stalinist plot to take over the world.
Of course, this applies only to western s-f. It would be very unfair to include asian s-f productions in this same bag. Maybe that's why they are so popular. Under close scrutiny, some of their plots are not as good as they originally seem but they initially shock you as deeper just because they dare to break so many walls that, in the west, we take for granted.

By arthur argote (Archiea) (66.32.149.54) on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 11:41 pm:

I'm not a fan of the gene rodenberry future, though I admit that it serves its purpose as an ideal fictious univers. While Star trek isn't my type of sci fi, it has grown on me to the point where its like comfort food for me.

For me, the best depiction of what first contact with an alien species would be like is Alien. No universal translater, no prime directive... we're just food. I loved that. For all of the philosophical views of our place in the universe, here we meet an alien that is barely sentient. And we end up as its food. I loved how the alien's cycle is so offensive. it first rapes you, inpregnates you and is then a cancer that rips out of your body. This is far more believable as to what awiats us compared to Star trek.

Most Sci fi on TV is not for me. The new Twilight zone seems pretty good. Even when X-files was bad, the performances and production values redefined TV

By Gregory Douglas LeMieux (Lone) (161.231.1.22) on Friday, January 03, 2003 - 10:04 am:

Hiraghm - the John Hurt/Richard Burton version of 1984 comes out on DVD March 3rd. i look forward to getting a copy.

By Karl Stocker (Pixeltek) (67.28.109.176) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:03 pm:

Jim and Ernest both stated valid points, and in some way were actually quite in agreement. I have been a reader of science fiction since early childhood (and that's been a long time ago) and to me the abbreviation Sci-Fi was always just that. I read no more into it. Where novels and stories are concerned, I always believed that each successful writer writes of what he or she knows, and then tries to extrapolate that into a possible or plausible future scenario, in a form that might be enjoyable for others to read. It is normal therefore, that each writer will express his own belief system in one form or the other in his work. It is up to the potential reader to screen out what he might consider unacceptable. I've picked novels up and dropped them after reading a page or two, regardless of the authors' biases. Others grip me from line one. As for expressed opinions and beliefs, that is for us to criticise freely. That's our right with anything that's made for public consumption. Now, where the visual media is concerned, first of all, producers, who put the cash on the line, get to call the shots, change stories, or scuttle entire projects. They too will promote, openly and knowingly or subconsciously (though I doubt the latter) their own beliefs and have them included and expressed on screen. As will, by the way, everyone who has any sort of influence with the project. That is their right as well, as it is ours not to go and see their stuff and to openly criticise their work. I believe (maybe in my own naivete) that very little is written for purely propaganda purposes that was widely accepted, but that most, if not all, what we read or see is biased by those involved in its creation, and that it's up to us to find what suits us. Sure, the Star Trek universe is full of contradictions and as art form, not exactly what I call quality science fiction and neither is the much loved Star Wars universe. However, I think they did manage to get a lot of people accepting of and interested in the genre, by raising general awareness of the fine literature that does exist beyond the horizon of standard fiction.
Oh, as for Jolene, Jim, I happen to like her looks, as well as I like the looks of the women of Farscape (not the three-eyed hag - sorry). Maybe none of them beautiful in the classical (Poser-perpetuated) sense, but unique and, IMO, far from ugly. But fortunately you can't legislate or beat your own sense of aestetics into the rest of the male population...and that's a good thing, or the likes of Jeri Ryan (7 of 9) probably would never have graced our TV screens ;-). Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. So be it.

By Gregory Douglas LeMieux (Lone) (161.231.1.22) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:51 pm:

while we are all, of course, free to believe whatever we please, i give you THE INVADERS. in the made-for-tv movie starring SCOTT BAKULA, the invaders were ALL meat-scarfing chain-smokers (which might have been forgivable had the whole 'movie' not been garbage). need i even mention WATERWORLD (which i, and i alone, actually liked), where the villians were nick-named SMOKERS? while novels, normally the works of individuals, may or may not rate a pass, the collective bias of the networks, and studios, is indefensible.

By Jeff Thomann (Mastermesh) (128.206.230.39) on Thursday, January 09, 2003 - 07:06 pm:

Sci-Fi is more or less just a glimpse of the future in fiction... Not long ago it would have been sci-fi to be on this forum, or even on the internet. I know that one of the reasons that I got into this whole 3d thing and bought LW in the first place was that it was an idea that appealed to me - the idea of 3d polygons rendered on a 2d surface, and being able to see that 3d thing all the way around without that thing(s) actually existing in the real world: that's but pure science fiction if you think about it... You can apply the science, but the true thing is nothing but fiction.

One of the main reasons I bought LW instead of a competitor was the Enterprise Opening Sequence.

I personally loved the ancedotal movie, Nemesis, since it sort of puts a book end on the series.

Speaking of Sci-Fi, Check this not to long ago Fiction that is now Science:
http://www.senseboard.com/

With stuff like this, that big 3d globe thing that costs about 50 grand, and mocap, we truly are just a little ways away from creating a holodeck.