if you explain the bogeyman, he's not very scary. borg were great for a few episodes. then they got silly the more you saw of them. watered down and explained away.

now JJ attempts to explain the Kobayashi Maru. yay.

i'll pass

Watch how Kirk and his loveable band of rebellious scamps escape double secret probation and get even with Tyler Perry's Admiral Whogivesatoss. All the while foiling the plans of Romulan empire and with the help of Leonard Nimoy!!

But first, a word from our sponsors.

As a 4 line blurb in Star Trek II you can get past it but it doesn't exactly stand up to scrutiny.

Maybe Starfleet Command was looking for a prospective starship captains who could cheat outside the box.

Just a forerunner of the Corbomite Maneuver.

KIRK HAS A BEER AND CHEETS ON THE KOBAYASHI MARU!!!

I've spent far too many years on this site... lol

Take out the spaces. You know the drill.

5. "Star Trek" Mark Your Calendar: Dec. 25 Stars: Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin The Story: Shrouded in secrecy, but rumor has it that, in order to correct the timeline, Spock (Nimoy) is forced to return to the days when he first met James T. Kirk and team up with his younger self (Quinto) to prevent Kirk and the starship Enterprise from being erased from history entirely. The Lowdown: Director J.J. Abrams ("Lost") is hoping to relaunch the franchise by introducing a new cast and reimagining the look of the original 1960s show for today. By bringing back Nimoy and teaming him with Quinto, he's basically making a Spock buddy picture. Big Question Mark: Can Abrams and Paramount convince anyone under the age of 40 that "Star Trek" is actually cool again?

Anyway, has anyone ever heard of that plot rumor before?

Sadly, you might be right.

Edited to add:

Like the Bush family.

He's sort of like James Bond, except without the suaveness, talent and charisma. He's basically Kevin Federline in space, methodically banging his way up the Starfleet ladder.

Cheating and being a "user" in business is certainly out of character. Roddenberry's character description of Kirk from the beginning presented him as "...strong, capable, highly intelligent...a born leader, who has trained himself to walk the tightrope between friendship and authority without losing his sense of humor or compassion for others."

I'm not saying that JJ's Trek has to rely on canon, but Kirk engaged in "cheating" is definitely a re-imagined Kirk IMHO.

Jack's explanation was brilliant and proves that "ageism" - especially when it comes to sci fi ideas and stories - is bad for business. He should've been given turns at bat much more often.

But I'm sure you sci-fi geeks could've done better... :) Maybe if Clinton were President he could've found some chick to bang to give him the answers for world peace.

Happy New Year American people! Hopefully you're all out drinking and partying!

Either way, Happy New Year!

All the AICN talkbackers - even the ones I don't like or agree with...

All the AICN stsff especially Vern who is my favourite writer...

Christian Bale. Thanks for 3:10 To Yuma and Rescue Dawn this year...

The cast and crew of Journeymam for their work...

The guy who came up with BitTorrent which lets me keep up with U.S tv and not have to wait two years for it to air over here...

And loads of others who I can't think of at the moment!

As you can see from my above post, it is sorely needed.

I'll be asleep in 40 minutes but don't do anything I wouldn't do, Mr Xiphos. I wouldn't watch Rob Zombie's "Halloween" again or listen to a Backstreet Boys album, for example. So don't do any of that.

The future is bright. Stop.

Cloverfield is a Giant Sea Lion. Stop.

Al Gore jumps in, becomes President. Stop.

Chuck Hagel becomes VP. Stop.

Vern's reviews are archived at the Library of Congress; is honored at the Kennedy Center for the Arts. Stop.

Anchorite still in mother's basement. Stop.

Talkbacks gain edit button, but doesn't work. Stop.

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit drives Ringwearer9 into irreversible mental breakdown, is committed and his neighbors are relieved. Stop.

Monumental Talkback war ensues due to Fox plant incursions - TBers unite to drive enemies out in a massive, successful campaign. Five minutes later, TBers at each others' throats again, as usual. Stop.

The current remake craze is evidence that many twenty-somethings respect the work of the older generation. They should take that "respect" to the next level and secure the services of these writers for future projects or even rewrites of current projects.

BTW it would be interesting to take a look at the top films of the past 3-5 years in light of screenwriter's age. I wonder what such an article would say about ageism.

Here's the deal: in any "war" against terrorism, *all* states are allies. Why? Because states effectively maintain a monopoly on force. Invading Iraq and failing to install a viable government in place of the Baathist one just created a huge environment where terrorist types could thrive.

Now, there may be good reasons for invading Iraq outside of the "war on terror," but they haven't been clearly enunciated by anybody in this administration (aside from meaningless pablum about spreading freedom--words that sure sound nice, but don't really mean anything), and even if they had, the execution has been so godawful that whatever rationale might have existed doesn't really matter.

I'm not going to tell you who you ought to respect, Mr./Ms. GhostLurk, but I will say that if you choose to respect Bush for having chosen the "right" response to 9/11, you're a damn fool. Sure, Bush may not listen to polls, the CIA, the State Department, senior military advisors, retired generals, allies in the region, or anybody else in devising his "strategy", but that's only a good thing if said strategy *works*. And frankly, it hasn't and isn't.

Throw up on one side of the ledger any positive outcomes of the Bush Doctrine, and on the other side we'll stack the thousands of dead US soldiers, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the millions of Iraqi refugees, the Iraqi power plants, water treatment facilities, oil wells/pipelines, schools and police stations that *still* don't function, the trillion dollar price tag, $90 a barrel oil, an ascendant Iran, China and freakin' Russia for chrissakes, and a new global image of the US as a bully nation that kills and tortures and uses ex-KGB prison facilities to work its ends. We'll see which way that balance tips.

But hey, maybe it will all end up ok. But if it does, it won't be because of the Bush administration. It will be because of whatever poor bastards step in to clean up the colossal mess once W's gone back to his potempkin ranch to play cowboy.

On that hopeful note, Happy New Year's everybody!

Every wartime President makes missteps, but we've seen FAR less U.S. casualties in Iraq than pretty much any other war we've fought in. I THANK Bush for that... others want to blame him because ANY soldiers died in battle. Sorry, but that's what usually happens in war. The best one can do is to try to minimize the losses, while trying to put the maximum hurt on your enemies.

And judging from the 75% downgrading of Al-Qaeda's strength in Iraq, and the current cooperation between Sunni, Shia and Coalition forces to eliminate them, it's been working pretty well. :)

I'm content to let HISTORY decide which of us is right.

Moreover, there *have* been terrorist attacks on US soil. All those Anthrax letters, for example (and our super-competent government has yet to catch anybody for that), plus the beltway snipers, and a couple dozen bombings and arsons. See tinyurl.com/3bmjeo for more.

Additionally, with regard to the relatively small number of US casualties and the "trying to put the maximum hurt on your enemies," it's all cost-benefit. I'm not upset that US soldiers have died at all, but that the US has killed a huge number of people to effectively hand a ruined Iraq over to the Iranians. And that it spent (read: borrowed) a trillion bucks to do it. The point isn't that woe is me, bad things happened, but that the Bush administration is doing a whole series of bad things to actually make the situation worse. There's almost no upside here.

Finally, I'm a little confused by your statement that you are "content to let HISTORY decide" who is right. Point one, clearly you are not, as you have stated repeatedly that you think Bush is doing a bang up job. Point two, it's foolish to abdicate and allow "history" (whatever that means) to determine what's a good idea and what's not. The whole task of policy/decisionmaking is to pick the best ad hoc option based on the situation around you. And the options Bush has picked have been massively expensive and exceedingly counterproductive. For example, see tinyurl.com/2k3smz. That's bad leadership, to put it mildly.

And what DID happen to Kurt Wimmer with Ultraviolet? I can't believe the same person who did this, did that.

Kirk says:"I changed the conditions of the test. I received a commendation for original thinking."

BTW, getting computer access via "hooking up" was most recently done on BSG with Caprica Six and Baltar.

And I don't attack people for having political beliefs - I attack them for the substance of those beliefs, as many do my own. It's called debate, which you evidently lack the skills to participate in.

I recall Dudeone as a right-winger in a political Talkback, probably in one of the Rendition or Redacted TBs. So of course the overall theme of those TBs was for wingnuts to call Libs soldier haters. Lots of people were involved and going back and forth but obviously I had traumatized him to such an extent that he's got some personal vendetta and feels a need to Swiftboat me. That's typical of armchair warmongers - they can't even debate on a message board, much less take up arms themselves. Hypocritical coward.

cap'n can tie his shoes with his feet.

ad nauseum.

Now, spank me. V