


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trek XI Design Sketch Debunked</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/</link>
	<description>the source for Star Trek news and information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:02:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vlatko Mrsen</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-1207405</link>
		<dc:creator>Vlatko Mrsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-1207405</guid>
		<description>This is a joke right???this is terrible ship</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a joke right???this is terrible ship</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Captain Hamster</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-1145490</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Hamster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-1145490</guid>
		<description>Such a shame would have been awesome as the new E

Genuinely depressed...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Such a shame would have been awesome as the new E</p>
<p>Genuinely depressed&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-1135291</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-1135291</guid>
		<description>yes!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harry Bawls</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-751567</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry Bawls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-751567</guid>
		<description>My balls hurt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My balls hurt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MiniKirk</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-654884</link>
		<dc:creator>MiniKirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 06:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-654884</guid>
		<description>that Foolerprise would be EXCELLENT as the new Enterprise. I&#039;m ok with them not using it, and I&#039;m sure their E will be amazing as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that Foolerprise would be EXCELLENT as the new Enterprise. I&#8217;m ok with them not using it, and I&#8217;m sure their E will be amazing as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cj</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-391464</link>
		<dc:creator>cj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-391464</guid>
		<description>All I can say is...they better not screw it up. I grew up loving star trek and I don&#039;t want to stop loving it... I&#039;d prefer if they continued the story past voyager and such...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I can say is&#8230;they better not screw it up. I grew up loving star trek and I don&#8217;t want to stop loving it&#8230; I&#8217;d prefer if they continued the story past voyager and such&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Kaiser</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-218514</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Kaiser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-218514</guid>
		<description>So any up-dates on the designs of any ships going to be seen in this movie?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So any up-dates on the designs of any ships going to be seen in this movie?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stanklin T. McFibberich</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-70580</link>
		<dc:creator>Stanklin T. McFibberich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-70580</guid>
		<description>65. Buckaroohawk

no problem :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>65. Buckaroohawk</p>
<p>no problem :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olde Timey Fan</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-68600</link>
		<dc:creator>Olde Timey Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-68600</guid>
		<description>^67 -- brilliant.  Perfectly written.

^66 -- Serralac:  Cool!  Thanks for the heads-up!  (CE3K... White Castle Hamburgers (late 70s on WPIX Ch 11 NYC)...  Where else has the Big E shown up unexpectedly?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>^67 &#8212; brilliant.  Perfectly written.</p>
<p>^66 &#8212; Serralac:  Cool!  Thanks for the heads-up!  (CE3K&#8230; White Castle Hamburgers (late 70s on WPIX Ch 11 NYC)&#8230;  Where else has the Big E shown up unexpectedly?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave thornton</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/comment-page-2/#comment-68392</link>
		<dc:creator>dave thornton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/04/01/trek-xi-design-sketch-debunked/#comment-68392</guid>
		<description>The answer to star trek continuing,prospering or surviving, is NOT going  79 years beyond Picard and Riker. nor is it going backwards 150 years before Kirk and Spock. let alone early days at the academy.    simply modernize  the series or/and  movies, for todays audiences. for both trekers as well as non trekers.   

It doesnt   take very much , to bring the established die hard dedicated trekers to the theatre. 
But  with the constant reruns of tos, tng, ds9, voyager and enterprise available daily on television,  what would make an unfamiler or non fan , want to   shell out 10 bucs to go to a theatre to see what they can stay home and watch  on t.v. for free?   

From  techno babble  or  time traveling  back to earth . from  bumpy headed huminoids to the familer romulans,kilngons and borg, it&#039;s awfully difficult to to make any  star trek movie that isnt simply an overblown version of a t.v. show.   

Honestly; how many times can the fans be &quot;baited&quot; with the usual story of killing  off a regular beloved cast member  or/and  blow up the established ship to get a more detailed one in the next movie? or;   travel  back to our  time, to change the current events in their present?  

Sadly it should also be pointed out that  star trek the motion picture, star trek 5 and star trek insurrection, were more true to the &quot;space exploration&quot; (less military )  theme of the original series and yet was the least popular and profitable.   

  what made star trek special was not  tecno babble, snazzy make up or spectacular fx.   it was the stories , the writing , the morality plays that were a reflection of us during the time the series aired. 

Unfortunatly over time, it became less about good stories that inspired and motivated as well as  character development . The  makeup and fx covered the  lack of interesting people and lackluster story telling.  the only interesting characters with any real personality were the guest 
star(s) .  Rarely did anyone get killed or laid . and as a fan i didnt really care about any major character being in danger or not. 

i knew,that  no matter how bad it got or looked, come 47 minutes (or 2 hours ) the ship would leave orbit and everything would be ok. no suspence. no drama. no excitment. 

so in closing; just making something and slapping the title &quot;star trek&quot; on it , doesnt mean the fans will accept it.  (good example , enterprise.)
nor will it bring in new, unfamiler fans .  as of late , the general feeling about the current state of trek is &quot;been there, done that.&quot;  or as spack said in star trek the motion picture, 
&quot;is this all there is? is there nothing more?&quot;

i have no interest in a prequel.  i dont care to go another century ahead either.
show me something new, exciting and interesting.  don&#039;t just use more adult language and more 4 letter words either. i dont need annoying aliens that have no purpose other than &quot;eye candy&quot; .  Show not only  us the fans; but the potencial new fans as well as the anti trekers ,that there is indeed something new under the sun. 

in the end, we fans are indeed wising up. not everything that paramount slaps the label &quot;star trek &quot; on, will   simply be accepted and loved .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The answer to star trek continuing,prospering or surviving, is NOT going  79 years beyond Picard and Riker. nor is it going backwards 150 years before Kirk and Spock. let alone early days at the academy.    simply modernize  the series or/and  movies, for todays audiences. for both trekers as well as non trekers.   </p>
<p>It doesnt   take very much , to bring the established die hard dedicated trekers to the theatre.<br />
But  with the constant reruns of tos, tng, ds9, voyager and enterprise available daily on television,  what would make an unfamiler or non fan , want to   shell out 10 bucs to go to a theatre to see what they can stay home and watch  on t.v. for free?   </p>
<p>From  techno babble  or  time traveling  back to earth . from  bumpy headed huminoids to the familer romulans,kilngons and borg, it&#8217;s awfully difficult to to make any  star trek movie that isnt simply an overblown version of a t.v. show.   </p>
<p>Honestly; how many times can the fans be &#8220;baited&#8221; with the usual story of killing  off a regular beloved cast member  or/and  blow up the established ship to get a more detailed one in the next movie? or;   travel  back to our  time, to change the current events in their present?  </p>
<p>Sadly it should also be pointed out that  star trek the motion picture, star trek 5 and star trek insurrection, were more true to the &#8220;space exploration&#8221; (less military )  theme of the original series and yet was the least popular and profitable.   </p>
<p>  what made star trek special was not  tecno babble, snazzy make up or spectacular fx.   it was the stories , the writing , the morality plays that were a reflection of us during the time the series aired. </p>
<p>Unfortunatly over time, it became less about good stories that inspired and motivated as well as  character development . The  makeup and fx covered the  lack of interesting people and lackluster story telling.  the only interesting characters with any real personality were the guest<br />
star(s) .  Rarely did anyone get killed or laid . and as a fan i didnt really care about any major character being in danger or not. </p>
<p>i knew,that  no matter how bad it got or looked, come 47 minutes (or 2 hours ) the ship would leave orbit and everything would be ok. no suspence. no drama. no excitment. </p>
<p>so in closing; just making something and slapping the title &#8220;star trek&#8221; on it , doesnt mean the fans will accept it.  (good example , enterprise.)<br />
nor will it bring in new, unfamiler fans .  as of late , the general feeling about the current state of trek is &#8220;been there, done that.&#8221;  or as spack said in star trek the motion picture,<br />
&#8220;is this all there is? is there nothing more?&#8221;</p>
<p>i have no interest in a prequel.  i dont care to go another century ahead either.<br />
show me something new, exciting and interesting.  don&#8217;t just use more adult language and more 4 letter words either. i dont need annoying aliens that have no purpose other than &#8220;eye candy&#8221; .  Show not only  us the fans; but the potencial new fans as well as the anti trekers ,that there is indeed something new under the sun. </p>
<p>in the end, we fans are indeed wising up. not everything that paramount slaps the label &#8220;star trek &#8221; on, will   simply be accepted and loved .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
