(Author’s Note: The rankings following the jump are intended in jest. Bring your sense of humor with you. You have been warned.)
Our good friend (and soon-to-be conference coeval) Bill Connelly, of whom I made mention earlier today after he gave Mark Richt the credit due him (and thereby almost made up for singling out every Georgia loss of the 2011 college football season as one of the best of the campaign), became the first BlogPoll voter to rank his pre-pre-preseason top 25 for 2012. While I applaud his effort, and the efforts of those of my blogging colleagues who will undertake the identical endeavor this week, I believe such an exercise aims too low. For myself, I intend instead to shoot for a loftier target, which is why I have decided to bring you . . .

My 2031 College Football Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Preseason Top 25
-
Alabama: Hey, I’ve ticked these guys off enough in the present; I’m not going to infuriate them in the future, too! Since becoming the first college football team coached by a cyborg in 2018, the Crimson Tide have gone undefeated in thirteen straight seasons, capturing 16 national championships in the process. Many believe the program’s head coach, NIK-9000, has built his sustained success on converting his student-athletes into cyborgs, medically redshirting the human halves of the less successful man-machines, and maintaining an active roster of 170 players due to a loophole that allows Alabama to count each cyborg player as only 50 per cent of a human being. The Tide are poised for another run after successfully defeating a proposed NCAA rules change that would have forced Alabama to count each student-athlete as three-fifths of a person.
-
Southern California: When Lane Kiffin says this is the team he’s waited 20 years to coach, he isn’t kidding; the brash serial secondary-violator offered scholarships to each and every one of the current crop of Trojans when they were still in diapers, and, after cultivating these prep prospects for two full decades, he has USC ready to challenge for another national championship.
-
Texas: The Longhorns have faced daunting slates every year since joining the Big Us in 2016, annually competing in a dozen intra-squad scrimmages that make Texas the only team tough enough to tangle with Texas twelve times every autumn. Last year’s 12-0 run through the regular season ended on a down note when the ‘Horns lost the Cotton Bowl to SEC West powerhouse Texas A&M, but, with the Austin-based and ESPN-subsidized Longhorn Bowl set to extend an invitation to Texas as soon as the Longhorns become eligible for the postseason after an autumn spent playing with themselves, an undefeated season appears all but assured for Texas.
-
Louisiana State: The Bayou Bengals went through a bit of a downcycle after a distracted Les Miles mistakenly ate a handful of artificial turf from the Superdome in the 2019 Sugar Bowl, but the Tigers have rebounded from the accidental poisoning that gave their head coach brain damage. The lean years might not have lasted so long had it not taken the LSU athletic administration another four years to recognize the problem. “Les pretty much just coached like he always did,” admitted a befuddled athletic director.
-
Florida State: No, I don’t believe this, either, but, if you rate a perennially underachieving team as a preseason top five club on the strength of consistently solid recruiting despite any evidence that this will ever pay off on the field, you’re bound to be right eventually. This could be the year one of those typewriter-wielding chimpanzees finally lucks into banging out “Hamlet”!
-
Central Florida: Though their move to the Big East in the early 2010s helped them immensely, the Knights’ ultimate breakthrough resulted from the unarrested progress of global climate change. After rising seas eradicated Gainesville, Miami, and Tampa from the map in 2024, UCF began hauling in recruits who otherwise might have signed with the Gators, the Hurricanes, or the Bulls . . . at least, recruits from those areas of the
Sunshine Submerged State still capable of sustaining human life!
-
Texas A&M: The Aggies are loaded, confident, and expected to contend with a stout defense and a potent offense. Yeah, they’re going 6-6, aren’t they?
-
Clemson: The Tigers are really, really determined to commemorate the 50th anniversary of their 1981 national championship by making this the first year since the end of the Danny Ford era in which the Country Gentlemen don’t gack up an inexplicable loss to N.C. State or some similar bulwark of nondescript mediocrity in utterly baffling fashion.
-
Notre Damichigan: In response to the fading relevance of the onetime Midwestern powers, and in recognition of the reality that, to outsiders, these two schools were indistinguishable has-been programs with obnoxious fans who were utterly oblivious to their lack of any latter-day foundation for being so condescending, Michigan and Notre Dame finally merged in 2027. The Fighting Wolverirish figure to finish ahead of the other 26 teams in the Big Ten.
-
Georgia: Mark Richt begins his 31st season in Athens as the Bulldogs’ all-time winningest head coach, with six SEC championships to his credit. Will this year’s ten-win season be the one that finally forces the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to concede he is no longer on the hot seat?
-
Ohio State: The Buckeyes are confident heading into 2031, asserts fifth-year head coach Craig Krenzel. “Unless we draw an SEC team in the bowl game,” Krenzel adds. “Then we’re screwed, blued, and . . . um, well, all right, we’re just screwed and blued.”
-
South Carolina: Is this year the “next year” that will see the Gamecocks finally bring an SEC championship home to Columbia? Well, if not, there’s always next year.
-
Oregon: Back from a decade-long NCAA probation handed down after their nuclear day-glo yellow jerseys equipped with rotating razor-sharp stainless-steel mallard feathers left most of the Washington State football team blinded or beheaded, the Ducks hope to reclaim their previous Pac-12 stature despite being forced to wear black, white, and grey uniforms patterned after the film “Pleasantville.”
-
Georgia State: Since they began to prowl the Big East in 2020, the Panthers have become the dominant sports force on the Atlanta landscape. This year, GSU looks to prove that this isn’t your grandfather’s commuter school any more!
-
West Virginia: Whatever conference the Mountaineers are in, they’ll probably be pretty good in it.
-
Auburn: How good will the Plainsmen be this season? The NCAA already has an investigator assigned to deliver a letter of inquiry to the Tigers as soon as they get to eight wins!
-
Mythical Montana: Prior to the Fightin’ Mandels’ breakout season in their first Division I-A campaign in 2028, there probably weren’t four out of a hundred randomly-selected average college football fans who even knew this team existed, but MMU has become a fixture atop the standings of the 22-team WAC, which changes its lineup for the 25th time in the last 32 seasons.
-
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State: One or the other of them; I’m just not sure which.
-
UCLA: Yeah, I don’t believe this, either, but it ought to be true, right?
-
Pitt: Pretty much UCLA, only without the scenery.
-
Virginia Tech: All right, I’m basically just filling in placeholders at this point.
-
Boise State: Folks may finally get the message that Chris Petersen isn’t going anywhere, now that he’s declined job offers from three-fourths of the schools in Division I-A.
-
Tokyo Tech: After Florida International broke down the barrier for teams from other countries, this Japanese trade school brought its triple-option attack to the Big Far East. TTU looks to bring home a conference crown, but how will the Rising Sun Devils fare in the bowl game? They might stand a chance if they draw Hawaii in December, but they’re in trouble if they go up against Godzilla.
-
Vulcan Science Academy: Since first contact was made in 2028, the future Federation mainstays have tried to fit in here on Earth, but their insistence upon “logical” play-calling has made them a tad too predictable, particularly in their annual rivalry showdown with the freewheeling reckless cadets of Starfleet Academy.
-
Purdue: I’m pretty sure they’ll exist again by then.
What are your thoughts on my (admittedly early) 2031 preseason top 25? What factors do you think will influence the accuracy of these rankings over the course of the next 20 years, such as coaching changes, conference reshuffling, injuries, early exits for the NFL, NCAA sanctions, the forthcoming birth of the athletes who will be playing the game by then, and the risks of worldwide economic meltdown, global thermonuclear war, and the complete collapse of the American political system and our country’s subsequent domination by the Chinese to whom we have mortgaged our futures? Your (thoroughly premature) thoughts are invited in the comments below.
Go ‘Dawgs!
Like Dawg Sports on Facebook
Is Mike Bobo the Head Coach at Vulcan Science Academy?
Dawg2011 - January 16, 2012
No Florida anymore???
So what happens to the WLOCP?
monty_python - January 16, 2012
Jacksonville's still there . . .
. . . so we can always play another opponent there. That, or use the open date to head to the St. John’s River and party without a football game interfering!
T Kyle King - January 16, 2012
The "perrinial underachievers" tag was already taken by UGA. See 2007- present.
There’s no way FSU can ever steal that designation from the bulldogs.
burmbuster - January 16, 2012
Yeah, the No. 2 final ranking in 2007 was a real disappointment, burmbuster!
Georgia a bigger underachiever than Florida State? Yeah, right!
For what it’s worth, the Bulldogs went 7-1 in SEC play in 2011 . . . just like the national champions!
T Kyle King - January 16, 2012
Oh, well I guess top 10 recruiting classes for a decade shouldn't count for anything then right?
Sorry for being off a year. And this year was a real gem. Georgia really let that tough bunch of opponents have it. Boy, that schedule this year was really something. Lmao.
I have been causing problems on several sites? hmmmm. Which ones?
First I am a Bama fan, then an SEC fan. I like UGA but between you and a few more posters on here, the only thing you spew is Bama bashing rhetoric. We don’t bash you over at RBR but yet you continue your dribble. Sad really.
And to be honest, everyone in this conference nows Georgia is the greatest underachiever in the SEC. With the recruits you have and the pool of talent you have to pick from GA should be battling for the SEC crown every year.
burmbuster - January 17, 2012
Goodbye burmbuster.
Kyle maybe a lot of things, but posting dribble isnt one of them. YOur failure to read the first sentence in the post is enough.
And, we had the staff pool on your ban.
And your got like 10 grammatical errors.
Hasta la Vista.
tankertoad - January 17, 2012
First of all, burmbuster, it's "drivel," not "dribble."
Secondly, it’s not drivel.
Thirdly, if you think we’re guilty of unprovoked ‘Bama-bashing, you’re delusional. It isn’t bashing to say there are valid arguments for questioning the legitimacy of a national championship won without first winning your conference or your division. Plenty of things get posted around here that have absolutely nothing to do with the Tide. If you think we never get called out for no reason at Roll ‘Bama Roll, try reading outsidethesidelines sometimes. Todd, Nico, kleph, and the rest are fine people, but outsidethesidelines takes every opportunity he can to take a shot at Georgia. If there’s any bad blood, that’s what started it.
Finally, you’ve had content deleted at Roll ‘Bama Roll and Team Speed Kills, you’ve been warned at Crimson and Cream Machine, Track ‘Em Tigers, and Addicted to Quack, and you’ve been banned at California Golden Blogs and Dawg Sports.
T Kyle King - January 17, 2012
banhammer!
i know i shouldn’t enjoy when people get banned, but i do
oneloyaldawg - January 17, 2012
I really wish Lane Kiffen would get ran out of town. That's the kind of post season fun we need right now.
tankertoad - January 17, 2012
Just don't forget to give me a wake up call..
if he is.
DavetheDawg - January 17, 2012
Basics
Never dribble in the post! Big men should keep the ball high and out of the reach of those pesky guards!
That’s just basic stuff, ya’ll.
jadams4148 - January 17, 2012
I really like
That he didn’t bat an eye at winning 16 national championships in 13 years.
bobothevol - January 18, 2012
Well, they oversign everything else...
… why not oversign national championships, too?
OVERSIGNING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, PAAAAWWWWWLLLL
vineyarddawg - January 18, 2012
7-1? USC and LSU.
LOL I knew what you meant.
CaptJackSparrow - January 17, 2012
If you use rankings as determination of underachieving (which is what TKK clearly was joking about given the absurdly early preseason rankings)
Then yes, FSU underachieves more than UGA. If you wish to update those stats to include the 2010 and 2011 seasons (which obviously had not happened at that time), UGA moves from +1 variance to -2 variance (-0.09 per season average) while FSU moves from -77 variance to -87 (-3.95 per season average).
The984 - January 16, 2012
Thanks, The984, but you've just given it a lot more thought than burmbuster ever did.
He’s a serial troll with a track record of causing trouble at several sites, and he’s one of that small yet vocal segment of Alabama fans who feel the need to bash Georgia for no good reason.
T Kyle King - January 16, 2012
I will always take it as a given that I put more thought into something than a Bama fan did.
The984 - January 16, 2012
I definitely don't understand the negativity from Bama fans towards UGA.
I’ve said before—and here I’ll say it again—I consider y’all allies.
Our coaches battle for Georgia recruits, but otherwise we have nothing about which to fight.
animalcracker - January 16, 2012
I appreciate this animalcracker, as well as the good discourse on my other post with you.
Just to give you the 411, the staff here routinely talks about the 5-15% of Bama fans that just absolutely hate Coach Rich for no reason. It’s almost like the fact he is a good man and runs a clean program burns them up. I have been to 3 games in T Town, and was absolutely impressed. But that small minority has a much louder bark than facts support. Given UGA’s longest of traditions and Bamas decades and decades of NCs, we really should have a lot of respect for each other.
tankertoad - January 17, 2012
Thanks, animalcracker.
I agree wholeheartedly. Any group of people that hates Auburn as much as, or more than, I do is a good group of folks.
As I try to make clear, the Georgia-hating segment of the Alabama fan base is small. Unfortunately, it also is vocal, but I never mistake it for being more than a tiny minority.
T Kyle King - January 17, 2012
"Any group of people that hates Auburn as much as, or more than, I do is a good group of folks."
I have heard before a saying that goes “Alabama and Georgia are allies in the War on Orange.”
The984 - January 17, 2012
Here that, burmbuster...
You’re a not just a troll…but a SERIAL troll.

Even the Cap’n has a problem with that.
DavetheDawg - January 17, 2012
*hear
guh!
DavetheDawg - January 17, 2012
You know what burns me up burmbuster?
The fact that people like you are too illiterate to understand satire and humor. There were 3 responses: a funny one, a “nice job” one, or just nothing. And then you just got destroyed with facts – and I know facts are a bitch, but The984 just just took you to school, showed you what time it was, and left you hanging by your jock.
Just say “I hate UGA.” " I hate Coach Richt" – thats cool. I am not a fan of Bobo or our S&C program. But trying to debate out of your league – major mistake.
tankertoad - January 17, 2012
Last year was next year
so next year will be the year after last year. Capisci?
tryptic67 - January 16, 2012
That's so weird.
I figured Alabama’s coach-cyborg would be named Nick Sab1.
(You know, with the number pronounced the French way.)
vineyarddawg - January 16, 2012
Just Curious...
Whats the over/under on the number of coaching moves for BVG from now until 2031? I’ll set him in at 14…
cgros - January 16, 2012 via Android app
That's 19 years...
… so I’ll take the over.
vineyarddawg - January 16, 2012
If figure by then
He’ll have moved back to the NFL 3 times and served as Georgia Southern’s head coach at least twice more.
RedCrake - January 16, 2012 via mobile
You had me at, "after an autumn spent playing with themselves."
The Vulcan Science Academy was just gravy. Hilarious and rec’d!
MidnightFrost1701 - January 17, 2012
Bama fan...
And thats funny.lol.
gibbygoat - January 17, 2012
Thanks, gibbygoat.
Much obliged. All in good fun.
T Kyle King - January 17, 2012
Derek Dooley?
You think he will become our offensive coordinator by 2031? Maybe he gets tenn in order and succeeds Richt? Turning out to be a real solid leader? I dunno, something I think about. Let him get some experience and then bring him home.
I really don’t see CMR going that long. Seems to me that if he ever leads us to a couple more championships (SEC) he might just go out on a high note and go into philanthropic adventures when his kids go to college.
'92 grad - January 17, 2012
You're probably right, '92 grad.
I took a few liberties on the timeline.
I mean, for one thing, everyone knows humanity doesn’t make first contact with the Vulcans until 2063, after Zefram Cochrane’s initial warp drive flight.
Why are all of you (except vineyarddawg) looking at me funny?
T Kyle King - January 17, 2012
Don't be silly.
That’s a look of admiration you’re getting from me.
However, that date also depends on your definition of “first contact.” After all, “Enterprise” fans (all 3 of us) may recall that a few Vulcans crashed to Earth and masqueraded as humans back in 1957.
(There now. We’re both getting the funny looks. Feel better?)
MidnightFrost1701 - January 17, 2012
Yeah, but I'm the one looking funny at you now, MF1701.
“Enterprise?” How do you know if the 1957 thing actually happened or was just a part of that dumb “Temporal Cold War” thing that got time-paradoxed and never really happened?
Scott Bakula (who is awesome) notwithstanding, I just couldn’t stomach Enterprise. The Xindi, the temporal cold war… I mean, dang, people. If you’re going to urinate all over Star Trek cannon, you should at least have the good sense to call it a “reboot” and hire J.J. Abrams to do it.
vineyarddawg - January 17, 2012
I don't remember enough about the Temporal Cold War
to have a theory on that. I’d have to go back and re-watch the relevant episodes, and I just didn’t like “Enterprise” enough to do that (by “fans” I meant those of us who watched and tolerated it, not necessarily people who loved it). The Xindi storyline was dreadfully boring, and I remember a couple of episodes during that debacle that made me really dislike Archer. He’s by far my least favorite captain. It’s not necessarily a knock on Bakula, but I don’t think he was the right pick for the role. He tends to look baffled quite a bit, and I simply cannot accept a captain who looks baffled on his/her own bridge. I get that it was all new to him, but fake it till you make it, dude! Janeway was usually facing the unknown too, and she managed to look like she knew what she was doing. Ugh, anyway.
Sadly, I think “Enterprise” was just starting to get good when it was cancelled. However, the series finale is just an unforgivable slap in the face to the cast. I felt sorry for them, having to go out on an episode that was basically a tribute to how much better and more popular TNG had been.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 17, 2012
I agree that Scott Bakula was the wrong choice from the beginning.
He was already seared into the public (read: my) mind as Sam from Quantum Leap. In virtually every episode I watched, I kept waiting for Al to appear and tell Sam what Ziggy said he was there for.
I admit that I watched the final 4 or 5 episodes, and I really liked the Mirror Universe episodes and thought one of the episodes I saw with Jeffrey Combs playing the Andorian was ok. The finale was absolutely awful. They basically squeezed what the entire series should have been into one episode, and made it a reproduction on the holodeck with HEY LOOK IT’S RIKER AND TROI I WONDER IF THEY’LL HAVE SEX.
Yeah, it was basically a big middle finger to the Enterprise cast, IMO.
vineyarddawg - January 17, 2012
Do you read any Trek books?
If not, are you looking to take your geekiness to the next level? There have been a few “Enterprise” books written that take place after the finale, and I think they’re better than the show was. Also, they have the good sense to bring Trip back (turns out his death was faked).
However, I have to admit that the other shows have so many good books that “Enterprise” should really be at the bottom of the priority list.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 17, 2012
I many of Peter David's Trek-related books what seems like eons ago, including much of his New Frontier series...
… but I haven’t really read any Trek books since then. I think I’ve discovered that Peter David is just a great writer, which is why I like his books, but most sci-fi literature doesn’t appeal to me in the same way it does in visual media.
If you like epic storytelling, though, the Song of Ice and Fire novels (upon which the HBO series Game of Thrones is based) is very entertaining. Not really any techie stuff, but it’s a well-told epic story. (Well, it is through the first 3 books, at least. I just finished book 3.)
vineyarddawg - January 18, 2012
Peter David is the rock star of Trek writers.
Several of his TNG books are still some of my favorites—Q-in-Law, Imzadi, Q-Squared, Vendetta. I was thrilled to get his autograph at Dragon-Con, which he’s attended for the past few years. I’ve never read any of his New Frontier stuff. I’m a little hesitant to read books centering on characters that weren’t on the shows, but if I ever get bored enough, I might check them out.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 18, 2012
Well, Robin Lefler and Commander Shelby from TNG were central characters at the beginning of the story arc.
Granted, they were only cameo characters in TNG, but I was a sucker for Ashley Judd, which is probably why I read the first in the series, which got me hooked.
I think Imzadi was the first Trek novel I ever read, and Q-squared was the second. I guess I got lucky to start at the top. :-)
vineyarddawg - January 18, 2012
James Tiberius Kirk couldn't read this comment thread . . .
. . . because he was blinded by the glare of how awesome he is!
T Kyle King - January 18, 2012
Let me help you there, sir:
vineyarddawg - January 18, 2012
Wouldn't you agree
that Shatner’s overacting was the only thing holding those papier mache sets together?
That said, I’m too young to fully appreciate TOS. I grew up on TNG, so TOS is just too hokey for me.
/pleasedon’tthrowfruit
MidnightFrost1701 - January 18, 2012
Yeah, I know vineyarddawg's the same way.
I grew up with the original series, so everything from “Next Generation” forward feels like watered-down “Star Trek.” I spent most of “Next Gen” thinking, “What would the real ‘Star Trek’ have been like with this technology and this budget?” (Well, actually, I spent most of “Next Gen” thinking, “Wow! Deanna Troi is smokin’ hot!” But then I thought that other thing.)
Fortunately, J.J. Abrams gave me my answer, and, for me, that definitively ended any argument over which was the best set of characters. Also, there’s the obvious fact that Kirk would’ve whipped Picard in a fight, man-on-man or ship-on-ship. Seriously, I have a T-shirt listing the reasons Kirk is better than Picard, and I took that position in my speech in the 1992 intersociety debate tryouts as a first-quarter inductee of the Phi Kappa Literary Society.
Finally, Shatner is a product of his time; that’s how everyone other than James Dean acted in his era. Watch Kenneth Branagh playing “Hamlet,” and you’ll see it’s just Shatner with a British accent.
T Kyle King - January 18, 2012
Huh, now I know why I like James Dean.
I’ve seen plenty of those “Captain X is better than Captain Y” lists. I struggle with the question myself because each show (and hence captain) is very much a product of its time. It’s rather unfair to the other captains to compare them to Kirk. If Picard had been written in the 60’s, he might very well have been James Bond in space. Also, it’s difficult to separate the quality of the captain from the quality of the show. So Janeway and Archer both suffer for that.
My grandmother is a die-hard Trekkie, and she’s fond of saying that she would feel safer on Picard’s ship but would have more fun on Kirk’s. I would probably agree with that, and I would add that I’d prefer Sisko for having a beer, I’d trust Janeway most to take over any other position on the ship if necessary, and I’d take Archer if I were directing a play with an open role for a bump on a log.
I must say, I’m a little surprised that an old school Trekkie is so fond of Abrams’ reboot. I liked it, but it didn’t quite feel like Star Trek to me. TOS and TNG in particular had a lot of social/political commentary. I don’t necessarily want a preachy movie, but the new one seemed like more style than substance. Also, I refuse to believe that there’s any parallel universe where someone can be promoted from cadet to captain. I don’t care if he’s Kirk or God; neither of them needs a starship.
/pausingtolaughatmyowngeekyjoke
Well crap, now I sorta want to watch the new Trek movie again to see if I was too harsh the first time around. I’ll let you know if I change my mind.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
I loved the Abrams reboot.
He was true to the original, yet put his own stamp on it, and the casting was absolutely brilliant. He found a way to work in all but one of the catch phrases, and he did so legitimately. (When Spock says, “Fascinating,” it’s because he’s just learned that he is about to pilot out a ship his older self piloted in; that’s legitimately fascinating. When Scotty says, “I’m giving her all she’s got,” the ship is being sucked into a black hole; he legitimately needs to give her all she’s got.)
Plus, the subtle touches only hard-core Trekkies got was a nice nod. Having Kirk eating an apple while taking the Kobayashi Maru test, knowing only a few of us would appreciate the fact that Kirk was eating an apple while telling Saavik about his Kobayashi Maru test in “Star Trek II,” was a show of respect, and I appreciated that. The icing on the cake was saving the payoff for the end, a la “Smallville” (which I still haven’t finished, so no spoilers!), when we saw Kirk in his uniform for the first time.
My one quibble—-and I continue to reserve judgment until I see the sequel—-is that Captain Pike had better darned well play a prominent role in the second one. If not, Abrams missed an opportunity. After the ship is saved, but before command is transferred formally to Kirk, there should have been a signal from sickbay to the bridge, with McCoy telling Kirk he’s needed right away. Kirk rushes down to find Pike dying, Pike imparts words of wisdom and tells him the Enterprise is his, Pike dies, Kirk grabs his surrogate father by the shoulders and shakes him while saying, “You can’t die!” . . . and McCoy pulls him off of the corpse and says, “He’s dead, Jim!” That’s the only catch phrase that didn’t make it into the movie, and it would have been the perfect situation in which to use it. As I say, though, I am prepared to forgive that oversight if it’s necessary for Pike to be alive in the second one.
Seriously, I have literally dominated half an evening of dinnertime conversation with old college friends pontificating on how exceptionally good a job J.J. Abrams did on the “Star Trek” movie.
As for feeling safer on Picard’s ship, well, to each his or her own, but I’d feel more secure with a captain who shoots back. Besides, a ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not why ships are built.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
By the way, . . .
. . . I’m pretty sure CraigT is about to come over here and call us a bunch of geeks, which would be a fair criticism. :)
I believe, though, that tangents like this one serve to underscore Warren St. John’s point that people who are die-hard sports fans tend to be equally dedicated to other interests and aspects of their lives, as well, and are not merely singleminded in their devotion to their sports teams.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
You forgot to co-opt MidnightFrost's argument into your own.
Flimsy plot holes like promoting a cadet to captain of the new Starfleet flagship after one mission are also part of Star Trek lore!
I’m as much of a Trek fan as, uh… well, anyone who doesn’t own a uniform or go to conventions, but it was clear to me that the Trek universe was simply played out after the Nemesis movie and the Enterprise TV series.
J.J. Abrams literally resurrected a dead franchise with his master work, IMO. It was as faithful as possible to the original, while the “reboot” mentality of it gives it a fresh start that was really impossible to get any other way.
And here’s my guilty admission… although I love DeForest Kelley’s portrayal, I actually preferred Abrams’ McCoy to the TOS McCoy. From his first line, “I may throw up on you,” his character was expertly done.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Karl Urban nailed it.
I don’t know about better than Kelley, but he was fantastic. Also…hot. If that’s what McCoy looked like when Dax slept with him, I totally understand where she was coming from.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Well, he did have "the hands of a surgeon."
Which, of course, is Dax-speak for, “He can [REDACTED FOR THE KIDS] like a [REDACTED FOR THE KIDS] and he’s also good at [REDACTED FOR THE KIDS].”
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I love that episode.
The “hands of a surgeon” line, the part where she talks about Spock’s dreamy eyes, and the final scene where Sisko shakes Kirk’s hand were all I needed. Everything else was icing on the cake.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
She had me at, "... and women wore less (twirls in a TOS miniskirt)."
(Then Bashir had to ruin it by making a sophomoric remark.)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Note to self:
Clearly, I abandoned “Deep Space 9” too soon.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Oh my, yes you did.
Dude, seriously. DS9 seasons 4-6 is some of the best Trek writing of any show. Do yourself a favor and return to it. It’s on Netflix Watch Instantly now (finally)!
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
MidnightFrost1701 beat me to it...
… but DS9 is my favorite series.
Seasons 1-3 were pretty weak, but seasons 4-6 are the best that any series on Trek got at any point in time… ever.
Start with the last episode of season 3 (it was a cliffhanger) and go from there. You won’t be sorry.
And season 7 was pretty dadgum good, too… but seasons 4-6 are just unmatched.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I was trying to avoid making him think I'm crazy.
That’s why I didn’t say it was the “best” Trek writing. Didn’t want him to write me off as a loon. But since you said it first, I’ll admit that I fervently believe that too.
I’ve heard it said that DS9 fans are like a cult within a cult. I understand why, but I think it’s a little sad that some fans don’t seem to want to give DS9 the time of day. I’m a proud member of this cult.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Well, it was a huge departure from basically everything else ever written in the Trek universe.
Some fans hate that just because it presented a more dystopian Trek. I thought it gave the universe more of a realistic dimension, however. And while it can fairly be called “dystopian” from a Trek point of view, it was in no way dystopian when compared to pretty much everything else like it out there. (BSG, Stargate series, Firefly, etc.)
The DS9 people were willing to do things like look the other way while Quark smuggled stuff every once in a while or allow a Cardassian assassin to practically become part of the crew. They were still embodiments of the “Federation ideal” at heart, though… they just realized they had to bend every once in a while.
I can see why some “Trek purists” might not want to see it, but I think it made for a much better series.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Totally agree.
I’ve heard it said at Dragon-Con (don’t remember who) that some of the other Trek writers wanted to go darker even near the end of TNG, and Gene flatly refused to do it. Though no one would put it this way of course, I think they had to wait for Gene to die before they could make DS9 the show they really wanted.
I have great respect for Gene’s vision, but sometimes you have to know when to let someone else take the reins (I’m looking at you, George Lucas).
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Yep.
I would argue that the dark turn got going in Season 7, especially with Wesley leaving Starfleet and “Gambit” (which is also one of my favorite TNG episodes).
Then there was the Pegasus episode with the Starfleet cloaking device (which everybody knew had to be coming at some point in time).
But, of course, season 7 was after Roddenberry had passed, so as you said, they had to wait until he was gone before taking the franchise in another direction.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
And, of course, season 7 of TNG had this:
(Link to the full thing if you can’t see it: clicky)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I just literally LOLed.
And I don’t mean “literally” as an intensifier (which drives me crazy). I mean I actually laughed out loud. I literally, literally laughed out loud, if you will.
/okimdone
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Thanks, both of you.
I’m not sure if my wife is willing to accompany me on an odyssey back through “Star Trek,” but I’ll certainly give it a look if I can.
I generally lost interest in “Deep Space 9” after the first couple of years, but it was more a matter of moving on to other things than abandoning it due to any particular dislike, which is to say, I’m certainly open to revisiting it.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
So all I am hearing is TKK is willing to watch a remake of star trek
That doesnt include the original cast.
That uses for the 1000 time time travel, which is just a cheap ass Star Trek writers trick to get Spock back in it.
That reuses old lines to make the Trekkies feel good.
That take kirk from a 3rd year cadet to Captain of the flagship of an Armada in a few hours.
But he won’t watch the A Team – because it’s not believable.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Yeah, but there's a difference between a cheap time-travel story so you can do one more episode about the temporal prime directive...
… and rebooting the franchise.
Reboots have been used by comic book writers for decades to “re-tell” the story using modern technology and/or modern knowledge and understanding of how the world works. I actually like the idea of rebooting Star Trek. The old universe had been bludgeoned to death under the weight of all the canon it was required to adhere to.
I like the fresh restart. And like I said above, flimsy plot holes are just as much a part of Trek lore as Jim Kirk getting the girl. :-)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
re: flimsy plot holes:
Take, for example, the best Trek movie: The Wrath of Khan. The whole thing started because a seasoned, experience starship crew didn’t realize that the 6th planet in the Seti Alpha system didn’t have 5 planets in front of it in line.
(Or, apparently, that the 6th planet had blown up but didn’t leave any asteroids or other remnants in its place.)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I liked all the tv shows (except enterprise)
But I am the only person on the planet that like the original Star Trek (the movie) the best. The movies (in terms of plot holes) like swiss cheese. Wrath of Khan would have been crappy too, but having two over the top characters try and go over the top on each other somehow worked.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
I believe that you're correct.
You are the only person on the planet that liked the first Star Trek movie the most. :-)
Call me crazy, but did they really think uniforms with built-in fanny packs (worn on the front, of course) were really the wave of the future?
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
The first Star Trek is true science fiction, which I like.
People just dont like it because they dont really like science fiction, they like space opera, which is not the same thing.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Why you green-blooded, inhuman...
… oh, wait. Never mind.
/space opera fan
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I like space opera as well. But I also like real sci-fi, which there isn't much of anymore.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
I think you misunderstand a little -I liked the reboot.
It’s Kyle’s double standards for watching Star Trek reboot but not the A Team that is the problem.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
What double standard?
My problem with “The A-Team” was that John “Hannibal” Smith was a thoroughgoingly American character, and they cast a guy with a thick foreign accent to play the part. As I’ve told you before, I will happily watch “The A-Team,” on one condition: you memorize Colonel Smith’s lines, bring the movie to my house, mute the TV when Liam Neeson speaks, and speak the lines yourself while we watch it.
If J.J. Abrams had cast Hank Azaria to play Scotty, and Azaria had delivered his lines in Apu Nahasapeemapetilon’s voice, I’d’ve felt exactly the same way about “Star Trek.”
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Aint buying it Kyle -
You made exceptions for Star Trek that you won’t make for The A Team. Liam Neeson is a Jedi Knight afterall, and he can do whatever he wants (besides, he is pretty good in the movie).
Don’t worry, I am working on an evil scheme to get you to watch it.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Evil scheme? Cool!
I love it when a plan comes together!
(Said like an American, by the way!)
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Liam Neeson is an American citizen.
In fact, he worked his way to America, and made the American dream a reality. He’s as American as it gets.
/drops mike
/leaves stage
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Dude still talks funny.
George Peppard didn’t.
/handsbackmikeyoudroppedaccidentally
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Dude is alive. George Peppard isnt.
(I was sad too).
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Liam is also set to play President Johnson.
Take that America!
He also played a Christian Evangelist in Pilgrim’s Progress.
Liam Neeson makes the apple pie you feast on!
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Yeah, and I graduated . . .
. . . from the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, which was named for Benjamin Franklin, who was the first postmaster general of the United States, and Liam Neeson’s first name spelled backwards is “mail”!
Why do I hate America?
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
I am giving her all she has to give, Cap-ee-tan!!
(after the crisis has passed)
Thank you! Come again!
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
"thoroughgoingly"
for a second, I got excited. That can’t be a word. Will I really get the chance to that guy Kyle of all people? You bastard!
Mr. Sanchez - January 20, 2012
Rec'd
And don’t forget about BSG 2.0. Which, for what it’s worth, is true sci-fi, not just space opera.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Relating to your comment below -
BSG 2.0 brought up issues of the proper roles of government, abortion, suicide when faced with terminal illness, loss of children, the right and wrongness of designing what became a populace as “slaves”, the morality and ethical decisions in war, on and on.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
I did end up watching it again last night,
and my feelings haven’t changed. It’s a lot of fun, but I still think it lacks that special Star Trek spark. Whether or not you liked the messages Gene was sending, you can’t deny that they’re an integral part of Trek (and really a lot of true sci-fi). Good sci-fi makes us see our world just a little bit differently or at least examine issues that we might have refused to look at if the message’s vehicle were a little too similar to our own world. Otherwise, it is just “space opera.” I like space opera, but I think Abrams’ movie falls into that category, and I agree with Tank that TOS was more than that.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
I respect your position, MidnightFrost1701, . . .
. . . but I think the movie dealt with large themes; it just had lots of other things to do, as well. For crying out loud, the movie destroyed two of the four most famous planets in “Trek” history (one of the other two of which was destroyed in “Star Trek VI,” which ranks right up there with “Wrath of Khan” as the best of the original-cast movies).
J.J. Abrams just managed to address these themes with some subtlety, which was not Roddenberry’s strong suit, particularly in his later years. Frankly, the Great Bird got a little preachy at times, particularly when riding his most shopworn hobbyhorses. (Yeah, all right, Gene, we get it; anyone with sufficient power, from authority figures to supercomputers to God, is, deep down, an insane child. How many times did he hammer that one?)
I’m all for dealing with larger themes, but I disagree that the Abrams film didn’t do that just because it didn’t hit the audience over the head or shove a message down our throats.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
I do agree with MidnightFrost that Abrams's Trek was less of a morality play and more "space opera"...
… (to steal one of tankertoad’s terms), but I still thought it was a master stroke.
To be honest, Roddenberry’s touch has been missing for a long, long time. The last Trek thing he worked on was the two-part season finale cliffhanger “The Best of Both Worlds” in TNG when we see the Borg for the first time. (And that was one of my favorite episodes of all time.)
Post-Roddenberry, Brannon Braga steered Star Trek into the world of DS9, which has its own merits, but as a more dystopian view of the Trek universe, not the utopian paradise of Roddenberry’s initial vision. And I’m re-watching Voyager now on Netflix, but it’s really just confirming to me that it’s TNG without all the good parts.
Roddenberry was the founder, and great at doing his thing, but if there was to be any new Star Trek installments, they needed to have new life breathed into them by someone. I think J.J. Abrams did that exceptionally well.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Agreed.
Roddenberry was a visionary in his era, but, when you stick with the same recurring themes for 25 years, what was fresh becomes stale. The J.J. Abrams film was plenty deep while doing what it had to do to give a fresh take on the origin story.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Ah, Braga.
Among Voyager fans, you’ll find approximately as much love for him as you’ll find for Tebow on Dawg Sports.
Voyager writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted a slightly darker, more character-driven show like DS9 but standalone episodes like TNG so that new viewers could easily jump in mid-stream. Predictably, that didn’t work very well.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
There's just not a lot of real character development, which is too bad.
(I guess that’s the “episodic” thing coming into play as opposed to being serial, which is what DS9 unabashedly became.)
Kes, in particular, seemed like someone who could have had such an excellent arc with her mental abilities evolving. But they just kind of had one episode where a criminal steals her body and does crap with it, then dropped the whole thing until she “evolved off the ship.”
Nice work, people. (rolls eyes)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
7 of 9 is probably the best developed.
Stop snickering, people. I’m serious. Jeri Ryan did a fine job, and even though it was at the expense of the rest of the cast, I think the writers genuinely put a lot of thought and effort into her development. It showed, and she’s just a great sci-fi character.
The irony is, I find that many hardcore Trekkies are so annoyed by the perceived insult to the fans’ maturity and intelligence in putting someone like her on the show (mid-series, no less), that they fail to see what a great character she was.
I read an interesting observation once about Seven’s role on the show. Each show has a “big 3” that tend to get the most/best storylines. On every show except Voyager, the big 3 consists of the captain, the first officer, and one other character. Voyager started out this way, but Seven replaced Chakotay when she joined the show. So Voyager’s big 3 ended up being Janeway, Seven, and The Doctor. Sucks for Beltran, but it helped make Seven my favorite Voyager character (coulda been Janeway, if not for those blasted first 3 seasons).
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
I can see that.
Chakotay always seemed like a less-exciting “Maquis Captain Kirk” to me. You can describe his character in one phrase that isn’t even a complete sentence: “Gotta have action, gotta get the girl, but I’m still kinda Starfleet at heart so don’t do anything too illegal. Oh, and I’m a Native American from another planet.”
Seven’s character did get fleshed out much more (no pun intended).
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Oh, and "Khan" and "Undiscovered Country" are two of the best movies, to be sure.
And in those installments, Ricardo Montalban and Christopher Plummer play the bad guys. (With little more than a cameo by David Warner in VI… but still, David Warner.)
That’s not a coincidence!
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Overacting is underrated.
The pre-“Method” classical actors all did it. Al Pacino still does it.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Knowing now that you quit on DS9,
all I can say is, watch DS9. I think you’ll find that it manages not to be preachy while still raising some great moral questions. It’s far, far darker than any other Trek, and my fave ep (“In the Pale Moonlight”) is probably the darkest, most cynical Trek episode ever made. But as long as you’re prepared for that, I think you’ll be impressed.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Are you sure you're not me, MidnightFrost1701?
“In the Pale Moonlight” is a breakthrough episode, especially by Trek standards. I also thought the DS9 finale was better than any of the other series’ finale. It didn’t really “wrap everything up” the way other series’ did, but it still provded some sense of closure. I really liked that.
And, to me, the thing that makes DS9 so great is that it’s a truly ensemble-cast show. Avery Brooks isn’t going to win any acting awards, but the cast as a whole is, IMO, better than any other cast from any Star Trek iteration. Multi-dimensional, capable of doing more than just “utopian Trekkie crap,” and with many characters that have really been significantly developed.
Patrick Stewart is my single-favorite Trek actor (because he was the best captain) (glances at Kyle), but DS9 had the best cast.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I'd agree with you on the cast's talent.
But I don’t think I’m you… [glances down shirt] That’s a negatory.
I don’t know that the actors themselves are necessarily leaps and bounds better, but they were given so much more to do than any other cast. If I were an actor, I’d definitely want to be on DS9.
Also, just wanna say that Avery Brooks is a nut (or just really stoned all the time). If you haven’t seen the documentary Shatner did called “The Captains,” look for it on Netflix Watch Instantly. The style is a little more pretentious than you would expect from a Trek documentary, but I liked it. Be prepared, though: it should have been called, “Shatner’s Ego (featuring the other captains).”
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.
I have the DVD set of DS9, and Cirroc Lofton (Jake) said on some of the commentaries that Avery Brooks was a riot to be around on the set. Seems like a good guy.
And that could be the title for anything Shatner has ever done. Ever. :-)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Oh, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news,
but don’t expect the “payoff” from Smallville that you’re probably hoping for. That’s not a spoiler; it’s a warning from a friend.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Without delving too much into the details, . . .
. . . I basically was just talking about seeing the lead in the uniform.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Without delving too much into details...
don’t hold your breath.
/tomwellingisadouche
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
One more thing, TKK...
Know that I’m here for you when you need to vent after finishing “Smallville” (especially if it isn’t football season yet). Friends don’t let friends go through these things alone.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
I appreciate that, MidnightFrost1701.
Thanks for that, and for everything you’ve been doing lately to spark quality discussion around here. You’ve been doing fine work, for which I am much obliged.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Uh oh... am I going to have to stop this car and have it out with somebody?
Picard was a better captain than Kirk in the same way that FDR was a better leader of a country than Adolf Hitler. (Godwin’ed.) Could one whoop the other’s butt in a fistfight? Sure… but they would never have been in a fistfight in any plausible scenario.
Picard was wise, intellectual, and also fit. Kirk was just fit. If they were going to get in a fight, Picard would have set a trap that Kirk would have blundered into and been caught forever. He wouldn’t have needed to fight the man head-to-head.
And anyway… who survived the one mission they did together?
(drops mic)
(walks off stage)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Isaiah Crowell . . .
. . . has a five-letter word for Captain Picard.
My guy’s first name was “Jim.” Your guy’s first name was “Jean.” Unless this is To Kill a Mockingbird, I win.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Are you calling FDR a synonym for a kittycat?
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
#teamSisko
drothgery - January 19, 2012
That man has a point.
Sisko did whoop Q’s ass, after all.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
was capable of being a statesman, a rat bastard, or punching someone in the face
whichever the situation required.
drothgery - January 19, 2012
Overstated a bit
but the point is still well taken. He punched him, and that’s more than any other captain can claim.
However, my favorite example of Sisko badassery isn’t even that. It’s the time he poisoned the Maquis planet, forcing the Maquis and the Cardassians to trade worlds. Gotta love a captain who doesn’t let principles get in the way of poetic justice.
Also, “In the Pale Moonlight” (where he and Garak plot to get the Romulans involved in the Dominion War) is my favorite DS9 episode and probably in my top 3 Trek episodes ever. I don’t know how much involvement Ron Moore had in that ep specifically, but it feels like an audition for BSG 2.0. Controversial, thought-provoking, dramatic…freaking brilliant.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
True.
Sisko is the dystopian captain. He was supposed to the “bad guy” things while still being a good guy.
So, I guess, he’s really like the “Jack Bauer” of Star Trek captains.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Hey, wouldn't it be awesome
if we could pit all the Trek captains against each other in some war games to see once and for all who would win? Y’know, sort of like a playoff for captains.
But of course when something unexpected happened, like Kirk and Picard both losing, you’d all start whining and complaining that the most deserving captain didn’t win and some of those captains didn’t even deserve to be there, and we should just abolish these stupid war games entirely. All because, like, Archer won…
…
Oh god. I think I get it now.
/notreally
//stillhatearchertho
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
That'd make Kirk like the Auburn of the bunch - the cheater.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
I'm pretty sure . . .
. . . the NCAA pretty much gave Cecil Newton a commendation for original thinking.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
I still prefer Archer to Janeway
The984 - January 19, 2012
Agreed, The984.
Janeway always reminded me of Pat Summitt, whom I respect personally, and for whom I’m rooting in her battle with her disease, but casting someone who resembles an opposing coach is not a good way to get me on board.
Also, the principal from “iCarly” as the Vulcan was just weird.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Yea, but wasn't weird was this:
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
I think it's weird you know acting roles on iCarly
The984 - January 19, 2012
In my defense, The984, . . .
. . . I have an eight-year-old, so Nick is a channel that gets a lot of play in my household.
That said, yeah, it’s weird I know acting roles on “iCarly.”
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Parents use children to cover their love of kids shows the way dog owners blame dogs for gas
The984 - January 19, 2012
Hey, I ain't afraid to admit that I like the guy on Yo Gabba Gabba.
I never thought the world could celebrate the LSD-induced hallucinations of a drug addict… but here we are.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
You've obviously never seen The Banana Splits
Shazzan, etc.
Mr. Sanchez - January 20, 2012
Or their kids for gas
mine is one helluva ventriliquist at 3 months. Can make those things sound like they come from another person in another room. He’s a talented lad.
Mr. Sanchez - January 20, 2012
Don't know much about Summitt.
But I think Janeway is significantly more likeable if you just ignore the first 3 seasons. She settles down a lot, and both Mulgrew and the writing staff seem to finally get a handle on her character.. In fact, if I ret-con seasons 1-3 away, Janeway is my favorite captain. Alas, TPTB never took full advantage of all those time travel episodes by making the early seasons disappear.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
THIS
I’m in season 4 now of re-watching Voyager, and I said to myself during the first three seasons, “I’d forgotten how much I hated Janeway as a captain.”
As you said, though, MF, she’s settling down quite a bit in season 4.
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
I've read some interesting analyses
of the development of Janeway. One theory I read that really made sense to me is that the writers were so nervous about having a female captain that they couldn’t decide what the hell to do with her (and Mulgrew didn’t know how to play her yet). Mulgrew frequently complains about how obsessed they were with her hair in those first few seasons and how it was really a sign of TPTB not being able to decide what to do with the character (hence, the new hairstyle every other episode). They didn’t want to alienate their young male demographic, but they needed her to be strong too. (Trivia: Mulgrew herself takes credit for insisting that Janeway wasn’t going to have a sex life. She says young men don’t want to see “maternal” figures sleeping around.)
I’m not trying to turn this into a debate about feminism, but I do believe that the writers over-thought it early on.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Yeah, if there's one thing post-TOS Trek has historically done bad, it's female roles.
Like Dax in DS9, for example. They wanted her to be some kind of “untouchable goddess” kind of person in season 1 and sort of season 2, then they realized nobody liked that.
So basically overnight she changed into an outgoing nymphomaniac. It’s funny if you go back through season 1 and 2 and look for the episode when it changes.
Then by the time Worf meets her, she’s practially “known” everybody on the station (except Bashir, of course).
And then there’s Troi, Dr. Crusher, B’Elanna, Janeway… basically the only major female role that really stayed the same from start to finish was Kasidy Yates. (And that’s because Penny Johnson is an awesome actress, I think.)
vineyarddawg - January 19, 2012
Yea, but I sure liked a certain lady on her crew.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
They all had that, though.
Lack of a hottie has never been a problem for “Star Trek,” in any incarnation.
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
She wins though. #1 in both polls and won her conference and bowl.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Ok, confession time.
I might know someone who once sat down and ranked the hotness of each of the main (relatively human-looking) characters of each show on a scale of one to ten. Then that person averaged the scores for each show to get “average hotness” and see how they ranked against each other and whether or not it matched up with “gut feelings” about their respective average hotnesses. Voyager won, and TOS was last.
/maybeitwasntme
//butidoloveplayoffs
///justsayin
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Interesting!
Did this system just include regular cast members, or were guest stars thrown into the mix?
/DrHelenNoelFTW
//gettingintoaweirdareahere
T Kyle King - January 19, 2012
Just main cast.
I (oh, who am I kidding? It was me) included Pulaski, Kes, Jadzia, and Ezri. Can’t remember if there’s anyone else sort of marginal like that. FWIW, I found that the results matched up with my “gut feelings.” I expected Voyager to win. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Maybe so. Ok, so it was bound to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. But it was even more fulfilled than it could have been…or something.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
Isn't that how the dude who owns Facebook got started?
Wait, are you the Facebook dude?
tankertoad - January 19, 2012 via mobile
Don't know anything about FB.
Not on it (for many reasons, but that’s a whole ‘nother thread), and I haven’t seen The Social Network. I hear it’s good and all, but a movie about a social networking site whose ubiquitousness I find mildly annoying just isn’t at the top of my “to see” list.
MidnightFrost1701 - January 19, 2012
The creator/owner of facebook, Mark Zuckerberg
Got started with a program called facematch – that paired two girls pictures and you picked one. It caused a lot of problems obviously, but he wrote the code, hacked the servers and had it running in hours.
tankertoad - January 19, 2012
Well crap.
Just as I was wondering if we’d need a dedicated post for all the Trek talk, somebody goes and changes the DS tag line. Sorry guys, no “who’s the best captain” threads. It’ll just make us look like liars.
…So, how ’bout them Dawgs?
MidnightFrost1701 - January 20, 2012
Well, . . .
. . . I just said we talked about sports some of the time!
T Kyle King - January 20, 2012
Somewhere, several Techies are laughing at this....
“and they think they’re better than us?!”

Mr. Sanchez - January 20, 2012
Actually, it's one Tech guy carrying on a conversation with himself, . . .
. . . but, yeah.
At least we’re not having this conversation in costume, or in Klingonese.
T Kyle King - January 20, 2012
And how are you so certain Frost or vine aren't in costume?
Mr. Sanchez - January 20, 2012
My job doesn't let me wear jeans on Fridays w/a Trek shirt.
Though that would be kind of awesome. However, during football season, we are allowed a casual Friday if we wear a football shirt. So I’ll be representing a somewhat less geeky obsession today, thankyouverymuch.
/staffordjerseyftw
MidnightFrost1701 - January 20, 2012
I work for a technology company, so...
(stuffs unrecognizable object quickly into box under the desk)
… I’m not wearing any Trek costume, either.
vineyarddawg - January 20, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawg Sports to post a comment.