Topic: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before (Read 155179 times)

BenRG · « **Reply #150 on:** 17 Nov 2014, 23:55 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 17 Nov 2014, 17:54

Seriously - if you look at some of the older ST fiction stuff - the "official" stuff that was published by Pocket Books after ST:TMP/ST:TWOK came out - you see some pretty decent sci-fi writing...

Yeah, that era has some of my favourite Trek stories, including The Final Reflection, a far better vision of Klingon culture than the canon 'space-Vikings' and Diane Duane's Rihannsu, created with the help of Marc 'Sarek' Lennard, which remains my canon back story for the Romulans.

Thrillho · « **Reply #151 on:** 18 Nov 2014, 07:13 »

Quote from: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04

Quote from: Gareth on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.
Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.

At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.

You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.

My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.

Aziraphale · « **Reply #152 on:** 18 Nov 2014, 10:47 »

Quote from: Gareth on 18 Nov 2014, 07:13

Quote from: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04
Quote from: Gareth on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.
Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.

At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.

You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.

My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.

I always saw it more as a spaghetti western with spaceships. It's only incidentally -- almost accidentally -- sci fi.

jwhouk · « **Reply #153 on:** 19 Nov 2014, 07:34 »

"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.

BenRG · « **Reply #154 on:** 19 Nov 2014, 08:46 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 19 Nov 2014, 07:34

"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.

It turned out to be nothing of the kind, although there was a book series in the noughties about the Enterprise-A supporting a colonial expedition - literally a wagon train to the stars. They even had a few local hostile alien species to act as 'Injuns'.

Thrillho · « **Reply #155 on:** 24 Nov 2014, 01:23 »

Quote from: Aziraphale on 18 Nov 2014, 10:47

Quote from: Gareth on 18 Nov 2014, 07:13
Quote from: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04
Quote from: Gareth on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.
Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.

At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.

You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.

My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.

I always saw it more as a spaghetti western with spaceships. It's only incidentally -- almost accidentally -- sci fi.

That doesn't stop it from being sci fi. The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.

Edguy · « **Reply #156 on:** 05 Dec 2014, 17:58 »

Rejoice, Orci is no longer directing Star Trek 3. Alas, they are most likely still using his script.

EDIT; a replacement has been found; Lustin Lin, aka the guy who did the majority of the Fast & Furious films.

Edguy · « **Reply #157 on:** 23 Dec 2014, 13:35 »

Quote from: Gareth on 24 Nov 2014, 01:23

The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.

I've always said that "superhero movie" isn't a genre, and even if it was, Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't fall under it. It's like grouping Pirates of the Caribbean with The New World (the Terrence Mallick film) just because they both are about people people sailing around a few hundred years back in time.

BenRG · « **Reply #158 on:** 23 Dec 2014, 14:43 »

Quote from: Edguy on 05 Dec 2014, 17:58

EDIT; a replacement has been found; Lustin Lin, aka the guy who did the majority of the Fast & Furious films.

This pedigree tells you essentially you need to know about Not!Star Trek 3. I would now need an absolutely fantastic review to inspire me to see it.

jwhouk · « **Reply #159 on:** 23 Dec 2014, 14:50 »

Does this mean Vin Diesel is going to play a Romulan renegade with a souped up Bird of Prey?

Kugai · « **Reply #160 on:** 23 Dec 2014, 15:11 »

And Sulu will be doing Handbrake Turns and Drifting the Enterprise to evade while the Warp Nacelle fronts boom out a Base Beat

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #161 on:** 18 Jan 2015, 16:06 »

http://trekinitiative.wikia.com/wiki/Fan_Census

Make sure you submit your fan census videos guys!

Kugai · « **Reply #162 on:** 29 Mar 2015, 23:05 »

I just dropped by the legendary Rifleman80s YouTube Video Channel

I am sad to report that the man known for some of the best Star Trek FanVids is, by the looks of it, out of the game. He can no longer get Bridge Commander to work, which he uses as a basis for his Vids.

One hopes that he can get the matter sorted and get back into producing some of the best Star Trek FanVids out there.

If you're interested, here's a link to his YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/RifleMan80/featured

And a small sample of his work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onjv5xRurmc

Kugai · « **Reply #163 on:** 07 Apr 2015, 21:50 »

Star Trek: Renegades have finally released their Official Trailer, and it's a doozy

Depending on how things go with CBS (and looking at the Trailer, I can't see any problems other than CBS and/or Paramount being total asshats), they're hoping for a Summer Release with this.

http://observationdeck.io9.com/star-trek-renegades-finally-an-official-trailer-1696329277/+charliejane?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #164 on:** 21 May 2015, 17:55 »

A building in China has been modeled after the Enterprise.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chinese-building-star-trek-uss-enterprise-chinese-119485563452.html

BenRG · « **Reply #165 on:** 22 May 2015, 03:50 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 21 May 2015, 17:55

A building in China has been modeled after the Enterprise.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chinese-building-star-trek-uss-enterprise-chinese-119485563452.html

Our oriental brethren always put us Western barbarians to shame when it comes to really proving their fanboy credentials!

Edguy · « **Reply #166 on:** 22 May 2015, 04:02 »

Quote from: Kugai on 07 Apr 2015, 21:50

Star Trek: Renegades have finally released their Official Trailer, and it's a doozy

Depending on how things go with CBS (and looking at the Trailer, I can't see any problems other than CBS and/or Paramount being total asshats), they're hoping for a Summer Release with this.

http://observationdeck.io9.com/star-trek-renegades-finally-an-official-trailer-1696329277/+charliejane?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"Funding was successfully sought for production during 2012 through Kickstarter and additional funding was raised through Indiegogo in 2013. Another fundraising campaign, focusing on visual effects, was started on Indiegogo on April 3, 2014, and concluded on May 18, 2014."

- Wikipedia

..right, ok.

Kugai · « **Reply #167 on:** 22 May 2015, 15:44 »

It takes a lot of cash to create something as ambitious as Renegades, even with actors with the calibre of Tim Russ, Robert Picardo and Walter Koenig working 'At Scale' or even involved in Production as Russ is.

Granted, it's taken a while, and got passed in a way by Axenar, which is now in the process of putting it's Studio together after the success of Prelude, but one has hopes.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #168 on:** 03 Jun 2015, 19:31 »

Michael Dorn is in talks for a potential series that would feature Worf as a captain.

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-captain-worf-tv-show-michael-dorn/

BenRG · « **Reply #169 on:** 04 Jun 2015, 01:31 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 03 Jun 2015, 19:31

Michael Dorn is in talks for a potential series that would feature Worf as a captain.

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-captain-worf-tv-show-michael-dorn/

Proof that the Abrams Trekverse is in trouble, IMO: They're seriously thinking of resurrecting the supposedly-retired Next Generation continuity. (NOTE: 'Seriously thinking' does not mean 'going to'. Talks, discussions, proposals and the like can take years before a decision is made to green-light preproduction and may not even get that far).

Kugai · « **Reply #170 on:** 04 Jun 2015, 16:27 »

Meanwhile, the fan base in varying forms will keep Trek alive, and with two major Kickstarter funded Trekverse productions in the works as well as Star Trek Continues/Phase II out there, it keeps things interesting.

Horizon is also another one, but I have doubts about that one.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #171 on:** 05 Jun 2015, 21:42 »

It should be noted that multiple Trek timelines can coexist because Trek isn't a universe: it's a multiverse (ironically thanks to Worf.)

Hell, the first lines of the show could be "Wasn't it sad when Spock was killed stopping that supernova that almost destroyed Romulus? Imagine the bizarre chain of events that would have unfolded if he failed!"

Kugai · « **Reply #172 on:** 11 Jul 2015, 18:20 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K723TV7GZFQ

Kugai · « **Reply #173 on:** 27 Jul 2015, 16:02 »

Star Trek:Renegades sets World Premiere in August

Kugai · « **Reply #174 on:** 18 Aug 2015, 17:21 »

It's been confirmed that Star Trek: Renegades will be picked up as an Independent Internet TV Series with Walter Koneig signing on for at least two more episodes as Admiral Chekov.

It will also be released on YouTube from September 30th, so those of you who have not had the chance to see it at the selected Cons it was shown at will be able to see it.

BenRG · « **Reply #175 on:** 18 Aug 2015, 23:45 »

Paramount should be sweating: They've lost control of the cash cow to the fans!

Kugai · « **Reply #176 on:** 19 Aug 2015, 16:53 »

Considering the kludge they've fed us in the last two films, I'm glad

May wake the bastards up

I know, I know, wishful thinking.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #177 on:** 19 Aug 2015, 18:55 »

Seriously though: Admiral Chekov?

Kugai · « **Reply #178 on:** 20 Aug 2015, 17:05 »

Full Cast List Here

Kugai · « **Reply #179 on:** 21 Aug 2015, 19:48 »

For those of you who might be interested in some info on the other Fan Based Project that is currently underway, here's a little something from Trek Yards on The Ships Of Axanar

BenRG · « **Reply #180 on:** 03 Sep 2015, 12:21 »

Just watched Renegades! Don't worry, there will only be one spoiler at the very end!

Not perfect; far from it. The first quarter is a bit awkward and I think the scenes where they're trying to introduce the main characters is badly scripted and has the feeling of a 20-minute scene dropped down to 5 minutes because of run time issues.

(click to show/hide)

The whole thing could have used with re-editing and maybe a further few months re-shoot of several scenes.

That said, it is a production with a heart. You can tell the the cast and crew believed in their roles and tried to make them work. Both the plot of the episode itself and the seeming larger meta-plot is instantly engaging and captures my interest in a way that Broken Bow and the Temporal Cold War never did. I found myself caring about the characters whilst still questioning whether they are all necessarily 'good guys'. I could see myself following this series in a way that I never felt entirely bound to follow Enterprise or even Voyager. I wanted to see this through to the end and that is something that Star Trek - 2009 and Into Darkness completely failed to do for me.

Overall? I'd give it 6/10.

The first quarter of the film, as I said, leaves a lot to be desired and the Plot Device was used unbelievably on several occasions throughout. However, it has great potential and offers a fascinating possibility of looking into the seedy underbelly of Gene Roddenberry's 'Perfect Future'.

(click to show/hide)

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #181 on:** 04 Sep 2015, 20:31 »

While watching that movie, this was the thing that kept repeating in my brain.

Quote from: Superintendent Chalmers

Aurora borealis? At this time of day, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen: aurora borealis?

Chekhov's granddaughter could have been edited out without losing anything. I also got the impression her roommate was supposed to be more than a roommate.

(click to show/hide)

BenRG · « **Reply #182 on:** 05 Sep 2015, 00:07 »

(click to show/hide)

Yeah, I get the impression that lots of characters were introduced with the intention of being far more important and their early appearances filmed before a later script revision reduced them to the status of talking extras. Key Learning: don't film as you raise funds; finish and edit the script first!

Kugai · « **Reply #183 on:** 05 Sep 2015, 15:53 »

Which is what Axanar has done.

Looking forward to that.

LeeC · « **Reply #184 on:** 02 Nov 2015, 09:48 »

New Series in January 2017
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017

BenRG · « **Reply #185 on:** 02 Nov 2015, 10:01 »

I wonder if this is the show that they were supposedly discussing with Michael Dorn?

Kugai · « **Reply #186 on:** 02 Nov 2015, 11:03 »

I think that that was the Captain Worf series and I don't think that that went very far.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #187 on:** 02 Nov 2015, 18:32 »

I was excited about the new series until I learned CBS is putting it on a subscription based streaming service.

Kugai · « **Reply #188 on:** 03 Nov 2015, 13:27 »

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/cbs-is-already-ruining-the-star-trek-tv-reboot/

Kugai · « **Reply #189 on:** 07 Nov 2015, 12:28 »

And as a balance to my previous Post

http://wordofthenerdonline.com/2015/11/star-trek-fans-need-face-reality-cbss-new-trek-series/

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #190 on:** 07 Nov 2015, 17:51 »

The second article somewhat misses the point of the outrage. Nobody as far as I know is expecting to see Star Trek for free. Even if it was on broadcast TV the advertising would still pay for the show. (Is that even a thing anymore in the US? Pretty much everything is cable, satellite or streaming these days.) The thing most people I'm hearing are upset about is that it's so nakedly a pull to try to get people to sign up for their new streaming service. Streaming services are not bad. They're actually quite good value for the money... Because it allows you to view a huge range of shows or movies. Their stream will only handle their content, obviously. If that's something that you are interested in, fair enough. And giving their show line up, there's probably a good deal of old content many people would be happy to pay the $6 a month to watch.

What most of the 'You're killing the new Star Trek' crowd seems to be up in arms about is the feeling that they CBS is holding the new show hostage. That to watch it, you HAVE to sign up for their new service. Of course, there's nothing to say you couldn't sign up during the time that show is on and enjoy 4 roughly hours a month of New Trek for $6, plus all the old Trek and other shows you care to watch. But what we are seeing is human nature. Even if you are giving someone something they want, but making it seem like something they HAVE to do, they will resent it. Consider small children and naps. On the other hand, convince a group of people that they WANT to do something or even better yet, convince them it's their idea in the first place, and they will empty their wallets, hand you their clothes and sit happily in their stripped out homes, thinking what a great deal they got...

hedgie · « **Reply #191 on:** 07 Nov 2015, 19:47 »

I think that's a lot of it. If it were going to be on Netflix, or Hulu, I don't think that there would be this outcry. As it is, I really don't see any compelling reason to sign up for yet another service that has such limited content (Next Gen and DS9 are on Netflix) compared to the competition. If I do end up seeing this new series, sadly, I'll be sitting under a Jolly Roger.

Grognard · « **Reply #192 on:** 08 Nov 2015, 19:17 »

me too.
weekly episodes should be easily found online less than 30 minutes after they air.

fuck CBS. they'll probably screw up the show anyway.

Kugai · « **Reply #193 on:** 08 Nov 2015, 22:47 »

I hope not, but I hold judgement.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #194 on:** 09 Nov 2015, 19:17 »

I don't download pirated content because I'm an honest, hardworking American. Also, I don't know how.

Akima · « **Reply #195 on:** 10 Nov 2015, 00:44 »

Meh. The last iteration of Star Trek, Enterprise, was bad enough that I stopped watching after... two seasons, I think, and Voyager was very patchy, so I don't really care any more. I think the big problem for Star Trek is not so much how they charge for it, as the dud quality of the product.

The Star Trek and Star Wars industries seem to work on the basis that they only have to wave a banner, and the fans will come out and pay, regardless of how poor the TV shows and films become. And they seem to be correct too.

BenRG · « **Reply #196 on:** 10 Nov 2015, 01:37 »

Quote from: Akima on 10 Nov 2015, 00:44

The Star Trek and Star Wars industries seem to work on the basis that they only have to wave a banner, and the fans will come out and pay, regardless of how poor the TV shows and films become. And they seem to be correct too.

That may not be true anymore. Recall that Enterprise was cancelled early due to collapsing fan interest. In very many ways Star Trek - Nemesis was the last hoorah of the previous iteration of the show. Its qualified fan reception failure, IMHO at least, led directly to the Abramsverse reboot (which also seems to be in trouble).

The real problem isn't that Paramount/Viacom is unwilling to spend money and talent on the Trek franchise. They've proven that they're willing to sink tens of millions into it, if necessary. The problem seems to be that they genuinely don't seem to understand what the fanbase wants. Or, if they do, they lack confidence that pleasing the fan-base would be financially viable so they're trying to make popcorn-fare instead.

That said, fan ventures do seem to be doing well, so if The Powers That Be want clues, they only really have to look on YouTUBE to see what fans think Star Trek should look and feel like.

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #197 on:** 10 Nov 2015, 07:50 »

The difference to me though Akima, is I actually think most of the Star Wars media is good. Yes, even the prequels despite the horrible decisions made by George Lucas in story and some of the terrible acting. I think the cartoon series have been great and I'm looking forward to the new movies with hope. On the other hand... Star Trek has for me declined in quality so much over the years that I haven't even seen Into Darkness, and probably won't ever bother. Voyager was very meh. Despite having a female captain, I couldn't get interested in any of the characters or their story. I never finished the first season. I liked Enterprise okay... But it honestly only barely felt like Star Trek to me. I honestly think they could have just change some of the names and made it a better show. Or they could have focused more on the creation of the Federation as we know it from the other shows. But more often they seemed to be wanting to do their own thing. Which isn't bad. It just left me feeling in the middle. I hated JJ Abrams' reboot. Saw it once, immediately regretted it and it's a large part why I don't care about Into Darkness or anything else Trek he does. Ironically enough, after seeing the movie, I said he would have done great on a Star Wars film, but he just didn't get what made Star Trek different than most science fiction shows.

Kugai · « **Reply #198 on:** 10 Nov 2015, 13:58 »

Enterprise had potential, and while the first Season was OK and was, IMO, getting better, they lost me when they introduced that damnable Xindi arc.

Here they had the opportunity after Season One to move the story forward into the founding of the Federation and the Romulan War, but they introduced that damned arc which made no sense to me considering just how much back canon materieal, and they throw it all away for a stupid arc like that.

Akima · « **Reply #199 on:** 10 Nov 2015, 14:41 »

Quote from: Neko_Ali on 10 Nov 2015, 07:50

I liked Enterprise okay... But it honestly only barely felt like Star Trek to me. I honestly think they could have just change some of the names and made it a better show. Or they could have focused more on the creation of the Federation as we know it from the other shows. But more often they seemed to be wanting to do their own thing.

The key problem with Enterprise, I thought, was incredibly lazy "generic Star Trek" stories that could have been slotted into TOS, TNG or Voyager. They started out with what could have been a very interesting pioneering, "founding the Federation" idea, with lower technology, less knowledge, and a corresponding greater feeling of exploration and threat. But instead, in what felt like five minutes, they rolled out the usual ST tropes, like phasers, and the "last second beam-out to avoid the explosion", and ground along the same old grooves. Again.

Slumping back into the old "white male Anglo-Americans run everything" comfy chair didn't help either. There was always a huge element of lip-service in Roddenberry's "vision" of an enlightened, post-nationalist, inclusive future, but he at least had the excuse of working on ST:TOS in the Sixties when he rolled out the Federation as "the USA IN SPACE". The producers of Enterprise certainly didn't do anything different; they recast as bad-guys the Vulcans, the only non-human species to be treated consistently as anything like equal to humans across the previous ST cannon, and the notorious "America did everything ever in the history of space exploration" opening-credits sequence suggests that it never occurred to them to question the model.

Quote from: BenRG on 10 Nov 2015, 01:37

The problem seems to be that they genuinely don't seem to understand what the fanbase wants.

I'm not so sure. I think the producers work on the principle that the fans want "the same plus 10%", and I am not certain that they are wrong.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before (Read 155179 times)