Jump to content


Starfleet Science, c 2800
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ducane

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 24

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North America
  • Interests
    Classical Iranian love poetry, Vulcan metaphysics, & Prince Charles of Wales
  1. Star Trek: Discovery

    Somebody call Ronald D. Moore
  2. New Star Trek TV series coming in 2017

    Needs Ronald D. Moore thrown into the mix, then it would be perfect.
  3. Indy 5 is a go

    Ugh. Yes, I just broke several months of inactivity just to say ugh. If you love it, let it die.
  4. There are several insightful points that have been brought up in this thread which I intend to go back and re-read, in part for the sake of deconstructing what I said several months ago about Roddenberry and Moore and reformulating it into something more specific in light of certain insights of my own in the field of the critical study of religion and modernity -- an interest which may reveal to one extent or another my Moorish sympathies. For me, the fact is that the social dimension of future-based science fiction must reflect and operate at least loosely within the parameters of the futurist worldview/paradigm shared by writers and viewers of a given specific moment in history in order for it to be thinkable and believable. To take one example, the idea that either American secular modernity is the natural, linear, evolutionary peak of all civilizations, or that the former is capable or entitled to define the rest of the globe's cultural and political sensibilities -- and this is essentially what United Earth is -- worked perfectly fine in the 1960s and not much shortly thereafter as we are all perhaps painfully aware. It may be that this critique was unthinkable in the world in which Roddenberry matured -- it no longer is. How does a 23rd century United Earth "work" from the vantage point of the world we live in right now? Even by Roddenberry's time, sociologists were embarassed by the absolutist secular utopian miscalculations their predecessors had made only a decade prior, calculations a faithful humanist in his time could do naught but ignore, a largely modernist visionary in a post-modern cosmos. I think it is possible to be an optimist, to envision a UE in the likes of Star Trek canon, but not one without something much more complex occuring along the way and perhaps far beneath the scenes. These are among the things I am interested in. Moore's creative abilitity to write thinkably within the contemporary theoretical paradigms while also turning them on their head and addressing contemporary critical questions like the War on Terrorism (in BSG and far more beautifully and implicitly à la 17th Precinct) is, I should think, capable both of resisting Roddenberry's vision as well as being more faithful to it than a contemporary carbon copy mentality could be. For now, I would be extraordinarily interested and grateful if you or anyone else might know if there exists online a copy of what Moore "wrote about what he felt was wrong with Trek." I would really like to know the specificities of his critiques, some of which we may have to consider on certain points even to defend Roddenberry's vision on others. He may very well not address anything I have said here, although my thoughts are inspired by his other work. I don't advocate darkness and grittiness -- which Moore to some extent must explicitly, DS9 not being an accident, and hence my need for further reading -- only deeper, serious, relevant explanations for the possibility of evading them, for the sake of which Moore can't be thrown out the window either.
  5. Forst instigation initiated (my way of saying hello old friend). I don't mean to push buttons, but I love this guy. Article on geektyrant.com, "Ron Moore on Why STAR TREK is Better Suited for TV" Original interview on startrek.com. Fan: I want to know if he misses Star Trek on TV, both as a fan and as a very creative voice? Moore: I think Moore is on to something, but I would be interested to see how others here might disagree. My thoughts: There may simply be aspects of story-telling that aren't marketable to the box office, if they are marketable to any mass entertainment at all. I am inclined to agree with Moore on many points except that I fear that even a television series might fall pray to the demanding forces of capital and the rigidly aesthetic and intellectual limitations of the current state of the arts as produced by and reflective of what I would call the contemporary downward slope of our civilization, to put it gently. However, I would argue, vehemently if necessary, that Moore himself would be the ideal mind and figure behind a new Star Trek series, alleviating such a threat almost entirely. Of course I must not idealize to the level of exaggeration how Star Trek has fared on the small screen. We are all here because we have witnessed the beauty of Star Trek as particularly expressed in its greatest moments, moments that make even the not so great moments appreciable on a sort of esoteric level. One problem (real or merely theoretical) for any Star Trek fan is the friend or family member who finally gives in, perhaps independently and unguided, only to watch the wrong episode. "Why didn't you ask me what episode to watch!" I might ask them. Bad episodes: all the series had them. A Star Trek series produced today runs the risk of having even more of them, but probably for very different reasons, i.e. the apparently widespread belief among television producers that creativity is largely negligible. Bringing Star Trek to the small screen again is not a magical key to saving the franchise, not at least without an experienced creative genius behind it. I would argue that Moore's decidedly superb creative talent and loyalty to what science fiction is truly about, in addition to his previous experience working with the Star Trek universe and establishing a significant amount of its canon makes for a perfect combination. He has demonstrated great success and dedication to science fiction entertainment as a venue for the creative exploration of those deep human questions, ranging from the metaphysical and profoundly spiritual to the socio-political and ethical. If Star Trek is to have a future, least of all as anything close to what Roddenberry dreamed it to be, it is through Ronald D. Moore. If fans are even to consider seriously organizing or petitioning for a new Star Trek series, it is fundamentally obvious who they need to make it happen and make it happen right. Now, let the fire from the other side commence, if they have anything to offer.
  6. Well, it's finally official for real this time:
  7. I would have to say "somewhat intrigued" but not much more than that. I am actually more excited and surprised to see (Elmo's?) smilies still work on here.
  8. Caprica canceled

    That thing about Baltar is true. He was definitely my favorite character. Throughout most of the show, almost all the characters hated him and with few exceptions everyone that hated him most also happened to be a stubborn, genocidal maniac. His character and Caprica Six were often the center of my interest in the show and I don't think he was really ever pushed to the back, but of course he was seldom the unique center of attention. I found the characters deep enough that even while I was intensely frustrated with most of them, I always remained attached and interested in them.
  9. Caprica canceled

    Sorry for grave-digging but I finally just finished watching the 2004 BSG series. I have to say, I have glanced at a few articles describing Caprica, and a few stills, and I just don't feel pulled into it at all. What I loved about BSG was that beautiful myriad of characters. They were all likable. Despite real tension between all the characters, everyone was likable. Even the characters I hated.
  10. Getting rid of "The Bronze"

    I strongly agree with and encourage this move, with the exception that I think Star Trek should continue to have its own distinguished forum. I know our community has a very wide interest in a variety of forms of science fiction and fantasy, but I would be surprised to see any objection to giving Star Trek that mark of distinction it deserves. Feel free to disagree, but a lot of people joined here because it was a place, above all, to talk Trek.
  11. 3.5 inch floppy disk is finally dead.

    To be honest, the 3.5 inch floppy is one of very few pieces of old school technology I am not too sad to let go of. I generally like old technology, because, despite its limitations, it is generally more durable and reliable (and easy to repair) than the new (e.g. VHS and VCRs, old desktops). However, I have always found floppies to have a magical ability to erase themselves... perhaps this was a last-minute ability they evolved in a final attempt to destroy us before we destroyed them.
  12. Windows 7

    I would just play around with it by trial and error, all the usage basics are user friendly enough; there's a great support community at ubuntuforums.org too.
  13. Windows 7

    Vista is what made me make the switch to Linux full time, a switch both I and my CPU have appreciated. I'd consider upgrading my Vista partition to try out 7, but having Vista Basic I don't really qualify for any kind of discounted upgrade.
  14. Michael Jackson passes away.

    I definitely agree here. And I think it's important to mention that music, or any art, is produced as a reflection of a person's creativity and virtue, and thus it is not illogical whatsoever to respect and admire a person because of the art they produced. He also managed to be both the first black guy on MTV, and the first white guy on BET. And that's an awesome accomplishment that no one should underrate. Also, I don't think anyone who's irritated by the media's over-coverage of Jackson's death is actually surprised. That's what the media has become. In part, it's our own society's fault. Most of us especially in the west today live in a celibritocracy, it just sells. And the media plays off of that and so reinforces it. The most ridiculous and frankly the worst thing is the honest fact that Jackson's death is the most informative or interesting thing I've learned from the major American news networks in months. Honestly, when I actually want to know whats going on in the world, I watch Al Jazeera. And when I want to know what's going on in my own country, I watch C-SPAN; It doesn't cover everything, but it cuts out the media man (I meant to type "middle man" but this will do just as well). I'm so sick of hearing one anchor tear apart my favorite late night talk show host, saying he's an evil liberal pervert trying to rape Sarah Palin's daughter, and another anchor blaming Sarah Palin for exploiting her children as part of an evil conservative conspiracy. That's not news. At least Jackson's death was interesting information. At least at first. I'm also dreadfully tired of so many anchors and reporters for example those on Fox News who are so bitterly and blindly partisan that they cannot even talk about one single issue objectively, even going so far as to blame everything on liberals, "liberals" this "liberals" that. And if I turn to MSNBC, I get the same problem from the other side. "Conservatives" this, "Republicans" that. Honestly, I haven't had the same problem with other networks like CNN, but probably only because I've overlooked it. I've stopped watching any of them except for the few minutes I walked in on CNN regarding Jackson's death when the news first hit. Really, the majority of the media are utterly, humiliatingly useless. Their overdoing of the Jackson thing is not the problem in itself, but just the tiniest, tiniest example of a really stupid system.
  15. Palin steps down as Alaska gov

    I wonder if Letterman's taking credit for this.