PDA

View Full Version : No need for Star Trek any more


Hugh
05-04-2005, 10:20 AM
There's a short article (http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-card3may03.story) over at the LA Times written by Orson Scott Card (writer of "Enders Game" and "Ender's Shadow") about how he feels that there is no longer any need for Star Trek

An interesting read!

(Thanks to Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) for originally linking to this story)

Peddy
05-04-2005, 10:35 AM
The only part I have a tendancy to agree whole-heartedly with is when he referred to 'Lost' as 'the finest television science fiction series of all time'. The rest makes sense, but I can't help but feel that its a very opinionated article.

Regardless, I didn't think there was any Star Trek left?

Damm
05-04-2005, 10:59 AM
Haven't read the article yet but boy Orson is a good writer. Everyone who likes sci-fi/fantasy should read the "Ender's Game", "Ender's Shadow and "Anvil Maker" series =)

Para
05-04-2005, 11:46 AM
Star Trek is basically gone at least for me, but there's a new player on the field now with 8 seasons and one spinoff (and more to come) behind it filling the gap created by the absence of Star Trek. I'm of course talking about Stargate.

BoydLake
05-04-2005, 12:48 PM
Unfortunately when he's not writing fiction, Card is very condescending. The Sci-Fi genre and Television owes much to Roddenberry. I'm not sure why Card would be so uncomplimentary of Roddenberry in this way, but slamming the creativity of Star Trek is not cool. There's nothing like kicking a dead man when he's down. Especially coming from a guy who has made a living re-hashing stories (both his own and stories by others).

P.S. While I enjoy watching "Smallville", it isn't exactly original. "Buffy" never really grabbed my attention. I haven't seen "Lost", but it looks interesting. My favorite right now is "BattleStar Galactica", and I have enjoyed "The 4400" and "The Dead Zone" (another non-original concept). I think what killed Star Trek had nothing to do with "not needing Star Trek" anymore. It was because of "Voyager", which failed to create momentum of it's own. Its new age approach to sci-fi never really caught on and was the beginning of the end. And Card can say what he wants about the original Star Trek, but I happen to like Kirk, Scotty, Bones, and the other characters as much as Spock. Sure it was campy, but most TV of that time was.

percydaman
05-04-2005, 01:57 PM
ahhh ok.. I really like orson scott card, and I can see where hes coming from, but in my opinion hes missed the biggest element of star trek. It was never intended to "read" like a scifi novel, where writers with too much education and imagination come up with overly complicated scenarios that the "average" television watcher would get incredibly bored with. ITS TV! its dumbed down for the masses, and if it wasn't, not a single series would survive 5 episodes.

Like I said, tv scifi is exactly what it needs to be (give or take) because its exactly what it has to be...easily digested by the largest amount of people possible. Card needs to quit thinking that books=television and television=books.

I rarely care to hear what writers have to say outside of their actual books. The rare exception for me though is probably michael crichton.

Peddy
05-04-2005, 02:24 PM
Star Trek is basically gone at least for me, but there's a new player on the field now with 8 seasons and one spinoff (and more to come) behind it filling the gap created by the absence of Star Trek. I'm of course talking about Stargate.

i used to be quite a big fan of stargate. but over time it just dragged on. Kind of like Friends, after so many seasons its just the same old same old. I can suppose star trek got like that as well.

chadtheartist
05-04-2005, 02:25 PM
percydaman-

He never mentioned it had to read like a sci-fi novel. His gripe was about the lack of depth the show had. Let's take Lost for instance, that show is not dumbed down for the masses. Michael Eisner said it wouldn't fly, and I strongly feel it was because he thought audiences wouldn't like it's depth. But, it was a hit, and I have to agree with Orson that is indeed a very, very well written show.

I would also say Stargate was good, up until about season 4 or 5. The last season was abysmal, and it should have ended when they went to Atlantis. I loved the early Stargate seasons though, mainly because of the scope of the stories. Very good stuff.

I didn't like the 4400, as it felt cheap and rushed. Taken, on the other hand, was brilliantly done. They took a very old concept, and made it good. The 4400 just didn't seem as cohesive as Taken. Even if their not really the same type of story.

I enjoyed the Battlestar Galactica mini-series. I'm bummed I didn't get to see any of the first season though. I'm sure it's good though.

EvilGnome
05-04-2005, 02:42 PM
It's quite bizarre of him to compare old Star Trek to new shows like Lost. His description of the original series could have equally applied to just about any show of that era.

The world and media has changed so much over the last 40 years.

I think Star Trek's demise came about because they had a successful formula that evolved for quite a while but they stuck to it even when it finally became stale.

They also suffered the studio imposed restriction of having to make most episodes self contained instead of creating the larger arc which make characters enjoyable to watch as they change/grow etc.

Q_B
05-04-2005, 03:00 PM
I wonder what he'd write about Space:1999 ...

It was the lamest of the lame, but sure did have one of the best spaceship models i've ever seen: Eagle!

Fahrija
05-04-2005, 03:01 PM
Unfortunately when he's not writing fiction, Card is very condescending. The Sci-Fi genre and Television owes much to Roddenberry. I'm not sure why Card would be so uncomplimentary of Roddenberry in this way, but slamming the creativity of Star Trek is not cool. There's nothing like kicking a dead man when he's down. Especially coming from a guy who has made a living re-hashing stories (both his own and stories by others).

P.S. While I enjoy watching "Smallville", it isn't exactly original. "Buffy" never really grabbed my attention. I haven't seen "Lost", but it looks interesting. My favorite right now is "BattleStar Galactica", and I have enjoyed "The 4400" and "The Dead Zone" (another non-original concept). I think what killed Star Trek had nothing to do with "not needing Star Trek" anymore. It was because of "Voyager", which failed to create momentum of it's own. Its new age approach to sci-fi never really caught on and was the beginning of the end. And Card can say what he wants about the original Star Trek, but I happen to like Kirk, Scotty, Bones, and the other characters as much as Spock. Sure it was campy, but most TV of that time was.

Well said! :thumbsup:

Q_B
05-04-2005, 03:06 PM
Ehr... Battlestar Galatica is an oldie too ... what you guys are talkin about is another "recovery" from an old sci-fi.

Sil3
05-04-2005, 03:06 PM
I wonder what he'd write about Space:1999 ...

It was the lamest of the lame, but sure did have one of the best spaceship models i've ever seen: Eagle!

Eagles are the best spaceship design ever IMO :thumbsup:

Q_B
05-04-2005, 03:13 PM
Yeah!

I just never ... understood ... why they had to have those low-end dated editn and mixing tables in the interiors ;)

BTW did anybody notice that in the scene in Star Wars when they power-up the DeathStar, the guy is just pushing a mix lever on some sort of editing/fx table? :twisted:

Kai01W
05-04-2005, 03:21 PM
ahhh ok.. I really like orson scott card, and I can see where hes coming from, but in my opinion hes missed the biggest element of star trek. It was never intended to "read" like a scifi novel, where writers with too much education and imagination come up with overly complicated scenarios that the "average" television watcher would get incredibly bored with. ITS TV! its dumbed down for the masses, and if it wasn't, not a single series would survive 5 episodes.

Like I said, tv scifi is exactly what it needs to be (give or take) because its exactly what it has to be...easily digested by the largest amount of people possible. Card needs to quit thinking that books=television and television=books.


Why do people who create TV always think the audience is stupid...? If anything this attitude makes it stupid.

-k

Rikof
05-04-2005, 03:27 PM
The only things that killed StarTrek are known by the names Brendon Braga and Rick Berman :argh: . B&B writting an arc? How can they if they don't know how to. Period. B&B with Moore = Ds 9 one of the best (arc) Trek shows ever, Moore moved on,B&B degraded further, Enterprise was "born" and Moore 're-imagined' B-Galactica.
B&B should had been be shot to the moon ages ago, without any enviromental spacesuits.

adityamatharu
05-04-2005, 03:39 PM
Is the guy even serious?????

So what if it was a bit far-fetched, at least it had imgination!! I ask anyone here, even as a CG designer, have you ever made a 3d model or a painting or done anything without imagination. If we cant imagine it, we wont be able to make it in the first place. When motorola made the first flip top phones, guess what did they name it as 'STARTAC', because I dont seem to remember watching a classic scifi series, which had similar cool communicators. Also, the idea of 'beam me up Scotty', ok presently our sciences say that it is impossibe but hey, if u went back in the 18th century and asked someone that you could show a man walking-talking inside a metal box, he would call you crazy but videocameras and TVs were invented. And didnt scientists do a beaming experiment with a piece of code in australia somwhere in 2000 or somethin??. Also, the klingon cloaking ships, they came up with the invisible guy jacket in Japan, and also scientists found a way to make big objects dissappear by some plasma technology (I cant remember but it was on google news a few months back). The probe they used to send to check out planets....the pathfinder on mars. And the list goes on and on.

He just beats Star Trek down to bits. Im sure its way better than that. He is on about 'Buffy the VAMPIRE slayer' as science fiction. 'Oh my god! Ive got a pretty face and I have a natural talent to kill vampires. I got knowledge of vampire biochemistry as well. How Sci-FI am I'. And to say Sarah Mischelle Gellar acts well is a joke in itself. And dont even make me start on smallville. Dont get me wrong I love superman but the whole idea of him being able to fly is not very 'scientific'. They jsut commercialised it, the original superman could just jump superhuman heights not fly. If you read 'The science of Superman' you will know what I am talking about. They are just twisting the whole superman history to let the show run another season.

Reading his article and the way he goes on about buffy and all doesnt anyone feel he's crazy?. What about 'Lord of the Rings'? Brilliant story and movies but what makes him believe in ghosts and dark magicians and vampires and not in aliens, when considering that only one of our satellites has made it just beyond our solar system, let alone reach another solar system (Im not even talking about another galaxy). And isnt nasa saying that there may be water on mars and according to popular scientific beliefs, presence of water increases the chances of life.

Then hes going on about people not reading and stuff. How much stuff by the great sci-fi novelists like Issac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke has he read?. It takes a lot more than just copy pasting their names off the internet, to truly appreciate their fictional works. And how many of your neighbours read even today, except for the morning newspaper.

Science-Fiction, the word itself has 'Fiction' attached to it. That means that its imaginary. Its meant to explore new ideas, wether they are possible or not is another story.

I can just go on for ever and ever like this.

It may not be the best series in the world but no way it deserves being called 'rut'. I feel pity for him that he failed to look at the main point behind the series i.e. entertainment. People may or may not agree with whatever I said and they are entitled to their own opinion but hey its a TV series, made for entertainment rather than being a science lecture.

percydaman
05-04-2005, 04:11 PM
percydaman-

He never mentioned it had to read like a sci-fi novel. His gripe was about the lack of depth the show had. Let's take Lost for instance, that show is not dumbed down for the masses. Michael Eisner said it wouldn't fly, and I strongly feel it was because he thought audiences wouldn't like it's depth. But, it was a hit, and I have to agree with Orson that is indeed a very, very well written show.

I would also say Stargate was good, up until about season 4 or 5. The last season was abysmal, and it should have ended when they went to Atlantis. I loved the early Stargate seasons though, mainly because of the scope of the stories. Very good stuff.

I didn't like the 4400, as it felt cheap and rushed. Taken, on the other hand, was brilliantly done. They took a very old concept, and made it good. The 4400 just didn't seem as cohesive as Taken. Even if their not really the same type of story.

I enjoyed the Battlestar Galactica mini-series. I'm bummed I didn't get to see any of the first season though. I'm sure it's good though.

I haven't watched "Lost" but If it were strictly a scifi show, I dont know that it would be as deep. Card writes novels that IMO would be perfect for television: "character driven and not too anal about the scifi technological accuracy.":thumbsup:

So if you dont like the drivel on television, why not write for it yourself?

DigiLusionist
05-04-2005, 05:31 PM
Star Trek shook things up back in the late sixties. Some of the stories were extremely controversial. So, that should be recognized and appreciated. The ideas introduced in the show were also pretty significant: Transporters, communicators, humanoid aliens (who always spoke English, heh), an intergalactic Earth society where people were generally assumed to be competent and intelligent (and where Women and Non-Caucasians were treated as Equals!), and other such concepts were incredible mindblowing for the time.

As hokey as the scripts were, they served a purpose, and that was to engage viewers and to immerse them in a reality that didn't focus on the technology alone, but which showed the impact the technology had on society. THAT is the true definition of science fiction. So, in this regard, Star Trek is one of the most successful chapters in sci-fi history.

The fact that some viewers started wearing prosthetics, and speaking like Klingons doesn't diminish the show's value.

I do agree, however, that it's time has gone. But to trash the show which arguably did more for the genre than most of the other shows of the time (such as: Lost in Space, Time Tunnel, even Space: 1999) seems odd. Especially coming from a member of the scifi writing community. The British shows, like UFO and Space:1999 were also great. But, I don't know whether they had as much impact on American society as Star Trek did. Some scifi historians out there may want to chime in on this question.

And William Shatner was not a charismatic actor?! Blasphemer! On this point I completely disagree. Bill was one of the best parts of the show. "Spock..! You're... killing me!"

Cheesy goodness.

Kgen
05-04-2005, 05:55 PM
Like the previous posters mentioned, it isn't really fair to compare Star Trek to lost. I personally liked Enterprise, maybe because there wasn't a lot of SciFi on when it started (it kinda grows on ya). That said, Lost is a fantastic show (one of the best this season), not much CG (from what I can tell), but the acting is top notch, and the story is mysterious and interesting enough to keep you watching.

Zarf
05-04-2005, 08:01 PM
We never needed star trek in the first place, not with 'Doctor Who' in the world!

(Ducks for cover)

Xarf

trence5
05-04-2005, 09:10 PM
I definately agree with Rickof about what really killed Star Trek....... God I miss Farscape:cry: :cry:

Morten_Jensen
05-04-2005, 09:41 PM
Sorry to see Star Trek go off air. But found redemption in Battlestar Galactica.
Gonna miss Tīpol and Seven of nine :)




best regards
Morten_Jensen

Frank Lake
05-04-2005, 09:52 PM
What truely killed off Trek was itself.

You can really only explore a utopian culture for so long before you have to re-cycle concepts. Yes Trek did good for the genre but it also did bad by it mainly because it was built off of westerns. Which don't hold-up under todays culture without ALOT of changes.

StarGate can directly trace it's design to Trek's episode setup, but even in a more re-cycled way. No slam, but frankly it's pretty flat and repeative idea that is based off of the HeeCee novels for the most part. It's almost campy!!!

VIVA LA FARSCAPE! The ONLY true heir of the 50's space opera!

specialbrew
05-04-2005, 10:02 PM
Of course, OSC fails to point out that Harlan Ellison wrote for Star Trek, and if he's wondering what old Isaac would've done with the format of a SF TV show, he need look no further than the aformentioned Space 1999 for which Asimov was billed as a 'scientific consultant' or some such.

And yes, Space 1999's Eagles were the most beautiful of all SF hardware.

c-g
05-04-2005, 10:18 PM
I definately agree with Rickof about what really killed Star Trek....... God I miss Farscape:cry: :cry:

What I liked about Farscape was having a smartass as the main character. Also that the bad guys weren't always bad. The CG was great too.

Nathellion
05-04-2005, 10:25 PM
Condescending indeed. Sure Trek was definitely not that booksmart, but alot of the issues it confronted philosophically were imo (Data's consciousness, for example). There's something about ST that makes it way better than other TV Sci-Fi. I would even rather watch Enterprise than most of the Sci-Fi garbage that's on TV. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? What a deusch.

Star Trek was good, even the newer iterations, and I'll always be a moderate fanboi. One of the things that killed Enterprise was it's lack of Warfs, Datas, Quarks, or Spocks (no comedic relief).

He thinks just because Ender's Game had a decent twist at the end that he can diss on arguably one of the greatest contributers to Sci-Fi...

Alan Daniels
05-04-2005, 10:27 PM
Like the previous posters mentioned, it isn't really fair to compare Star Trek to lost. I personally liked Enterprise, maybe because there wasn't a lot of SciFi on when it started (it kinda grows on ya). That said, Lost is a fantastic show (one of the best this season), not much CG (from what I can tell), but the acting is top notch, and the story is mysterious and interesting enough to keep you watching.

Absolutely! Exactly where Card gets the idea that "Lost" can be pigeon-holed as a sci-fi show is beyond me. There are elements of the show's intricate, unfolding mystery which *hint* that some kind of futuristic or high-tech thingy may be the driving force behind the plot. But, it's still too early in the show to know that for sure, even though the first season is almost over. "Lost" is hands-down the best TV show I've ever seen.

I just can't wait for season one on DVD (coming in Sept. Yay!) so that I can watch it with the commentary of J.J. Abrams, the show's creator.

BTW, did I mention that there's a new episode tonight? :drool: :drool: :drool:

unclebob
05-04-2005, 11:06 PM
Star Trek was beyond cutting edge in what it was truely saying .. social commentary. as a side note: in I Dream of Jeanie .. the sensors made sure you couldn't see her belly button, this was the TV culture of the 60's.

Trek had a "woman" in a command position ** gasp ** gotta remember this was the mid 60's when women were still thought to be "at home and taking care of the kids" and then a black woman on top of it, remember this in the midst of race riots. The episode where Kirk kisses Uhura; the sensors wouldn't let it happen .. so the solution was Kirk and Uhura turned their heads so you couldn't see their lips touch, but the kiss was implied. Yes it was a "bit part", but for the times it was cutting edge. In the original pilot, a woman was second in command, highly intelligent adn somewhat unemotional. The sensors wouldn't buy it and sent it back. It was rewritten, the woman was demoted to communication officer and Spock evolved (he was in the pilot but a minor character and emotional)

Trek also had a Russian on the Bridge and this during the Cold War. There was an episode about racial hatred (the guy with black right side/white left and the other white right side/black left). An eposide about workers rights, several episodes where world peace is the main topic, world hunger .. etc.

Roddenbury's original pitch was as a "Wagon Train to the Stars" (wagon train was a 50's cowboy show) and Paramount bought into it. Star Trek is credited with the career of several US astronauts, most of them women and Uhura was their idol as a young girl growing up.

pogonip
05-04-2005, 11:48 PM
If they did another Star trek series as good as the better episodes of TGN or DSN and it took place in the future of say anywhere in the 25-27th century and had awesome characters and good effects I totally believe it could revitelize the series and bring back the masses . I really hope we never see an end to Star Trek it was a big part of my child/teen hood . Man that would be a dream concept art job * drool *

Gamoron
05-05-2005, 04:07 AM
I feel Berman and Braga are the ones that killed Star Trek. Although I do agree with Card ( I don't like his novels) that it really wasn't nearly as brilliant as the Science Fiction novels were of its time. Look into Hugo and Nebula awards and read em all. Brilliant stuff.

That being said, it doesn't mean that the Star Trek universe couldn't have meaningful story told in it. Just the wrong people are at the helm and they don't care about breaking new ground, especially when they have some Emmys under their belts.

Battlestar Galactica was resurrected beautifully, the same could happen for Trek.

Paramount just has to wake up and take in some contemporary TV and Sci-Fi.

Stahlberg
05-05-2005, 05:14 AM
And to say Sarah Mischelle Gellar acts well is a joke in itself.
LOL you have NO idea what you're talking about there. :)

SovereignKnight
05-05-2005, 06:26 AM
Berman and Braga definitely killed Star Trek. Not only for now, but they so thoroughly ruined the whole past and future of the timeline with their asinine stories, that it's unlikely that it can ever be revived. I swear those two should be so fired that they couldn't even get jobs at Burger King for what they've done. Enterprise was, on every level, one of the worst TV shows in the history of the medium.

I've never seen LOST. I hear it's good, but I don't know anything about it. Purely from a story standpoint, the best Science Fiction show ever was Babylon 5. The new BSG is pretty good too.

They need to let Star Trek die.

Let it go.

Zeruel the 14th
05-05-2005, 02:29 PM
I like ST, but I don't love it. I do read alot of books and recently, for some reason everything has been leaking over. I don't enjoy ST as much as I used to (I still bitch about the borg queen and 'character development eps' which i see as a waste of my living time).

As someone who loves the thought of AI and Machines, ST doesn't deliver...Data was kinda there...as a meatbag wannabe (why?! Your so much more!). I did like The Doctor, better than Data...His head was shiny, I really like that. (and on that note. Did Mr Sheen always have hair? I seem to recall him being totally bald, and not balding as he is now)

I want a robot / AI captain. It'd be great...as long as they're not just another 'human analogue'. I keep getting the impression that Feds are not at all embracing to intelligent machines (a decided lack of any) as well as being seemingly communist.

I keep hoping that one day in some scenario that results in having to self destruct the ship the computer says "Yeah, Well **** you too." to the captain as they step aboard a escape pod. I think I've been reading too many Culture Novels. (Iain M Banks rules!)

I can't comment on Orson Scott Card's greater works. I've read Ender's Game (original short story) and I liked that, but I've not read anything else.

btw, I don't know who 'Berman and Braga' are. Don't worry, I'll bitch slap myself on the way out. :eek:

EDIT Wikipedia has educated me on who the aforementioned 'Berman and Braga' actually are. It indeed seems they are deserving of a beatdown. (maybe)

PhilWesson
05-05-2005, 03:05 PM
Is the guy even serious?????

Then hes going on about people not reading and stuff. How much stuff by the great sci-fi novelists like Issac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke has he read?.



Do you even know who Orson Scott Card is??

chadtheartist
05-05-2005, 03:08 PM
Science Fiction doesn't just evolve around advanced machinery and outer space phenomena. Science Fiction can be paranormal, it can be about everyday life, it can be just about anything.

I think the reason why Lost is considered sci-fi is all the "Fiction" elements that just seem out of place in a society like ours. 48 survivors of a plane crash. Miraculous healing. Psychic foretelling. Cursed numbers. Special senses. And so on and so on. The show is heavily rooted in science fiction. But it's not just the science fiction part of the show that makes it so interesting. It's the character development too, which is something you rarely see outside of a good novel.

toluabisola
05-05-2005, 04:22 PM
Im a Sci-fi junkie, not a Star Trek fanatic (sad b******s) but i do love Sci-Fi, all kinds even Blake Seven. Every Sci fi show i have watched has i feel in some way contributed to my ability as CG artist, it was shows like Star Trek, Blakes Seven and of course Star Wars got me intrested in CG when i was young and kept my enthusiasm when growing up.

It is in my opinion far too easy to slag off people like Roddenberry who as far as im concerned should be seen as a Sci Fi visionary. His vision of a united humanity but a divided universe gave me and my other black friends a sence that we as people as surely destined to evolve and move beyond our petty differences and become a united people. Roddenbury was spreading this message at a time when it was extremly unpoplar, maybe even dangerous to do so.

sure when you look back at the series now it seems a little cheesy, but very few golden oldies don't.

Also I LOVE ENTERPRISE!! hate the opening music, but the stories the characters superb. Seeing how the Vulcans used to be before they Truly embrased the Vulcan way is facinating.
But i do think that anyone thinking of making a new Sci Fi series should take a look at the new Battlestar Gallactica series, that should be the blueprint for all future shows.

Gamoron
05-05-2005, 05:29 PM
I think the message that Star Trek:TNG had about the future in terms of a very prosperous Socialist society that provides bascially anything and everything to is citizens was great. No segregation. I love and believe in that vision.

[QUOTE=I LOVE ENTERPRISE!! hate the opening music, but the stories the characters superb. Seeing how the Vulcans used to be before they Truly embrased the Vulcan way is facinating.
But i do think that anyone thinking of making a new Sci Fi series should take a look at the new Battlestar Gallactica series, that should be the blueprint for all future shows.

Enterprise tarnished that vision and showed all the fans that the producers were more interested in capitalism and sales then a golden vision of the future. That they were more into a swashbuckling captain and popcorn SciFi.

toluabisola
05-05-2005, 06:52 PM
Gamoron, i respect your opinion really but can you not look past the way the show was made and perhaps the motives behind the producers and enjoy the stories (i dunno maybe im mad but i like them).

And considering that the series is set in a time before the federation was formed and humans had not quite made it to the highly cultured level that we see in TNG, DS9 or Voyager i think captain Archer and the rest of crew behave in the correct manner.

But i do recognise and respect that everyone has their own opinion and is entitled to them (it is allgedly a free world after all)

trence5
05-05-2005, 10:08 PM
If they did another Star trek series as good as the better episodes of TGN or DSN and it took place in the future of say anywhere in the 25-27th century

Hey I got an idea:lightbulb :lightbulb !! Forget that......... Let's have a series set in the........... here it comes...... IN THE MIRROR UNIVERSE!:buttrock: :buttrock: :buttrock: . I can see it now.. Being captain is one thing....... but staying captain is another thing:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Who's with me?!? Then pick ya sigs and march on to Paramount.... :beer:
Just kiddin'. But think about it that would be interesting:hmm:

Lunatique
05-06-2005, 06:31 AM
LOL you have NO idea what you're talking about there. :)

Forgive him. He's obviously never seen the episode of Buffy where Buffy pretends to be Faith pretending to be Buffy. That was one of the very few acting I've seen that blew me away.

CGTalk Moderation
05-06-2005, 06:31 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.