io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 11:49 PM
Sun Nov 22
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/18/08
I operated the B camera on this scene and helped light it. (Along with just about every scene in the show!) In fact that was the very first scene I worked on with Phase 2. (Or New Voyages as it was then called.)
One of the things David Gerrold did in directing this scene is to use both cameras on fairly wide coverage in master takes. (i.e. the whole scene played in every take.) The idea was to "force" the editors to keep the length of this scene, and to put the viewer right in the room with them. We (The DP and I) had to fight to get the tighter shots, but when Gerrold relented he asked for two's. (i.e. shots that have both actors in frame.)
Given the particular controversy around this scene it was a good way to go, but as a DP and editor I always want more coverage to help keep the edit flowing smoothly. It always helps to be able to cut to a reaction or CU and possibly save a good take with a minor flaw.
Gerrold wanted people to confront their feelings about these characters and their relationship. I have seen people with issues regarding homosexuality walk out of screenings of the episode.
The guest stars were Denise Crosby and Bill Blair, both of whom were a pleasure to work with.
To answer AmishJohn about the naming of Peter Kirk... this character was introduced in the original series episode "Operation Annihilate"
[en.wikipedia.org]
To address Jim Topoleski, the actor that portrayed him (Craig Hundley) was 12 at the time the episode aired. That would make our ensign Peter Kirk 15.
There is room to fudge the numbers a bit... Peter could have been older than the actor in the original episode (as posited by the novel Avenger), and more time could have passed than indicated. Can you tell that this continuity point came up during production?
His partner is Alex Freeman, a medical technician.
12/19/08
12/18/08
- Kirk's easy rip shirts... gay
- Kirk's pre-oiled hairless chest... gay
- any time Uhura sang... SO gay
- Picard as Robin Hood... G-A-Y GAY
- Data can double as a flotation device in the event of an emergency... head- bashingly gay
- Star Trek: Voyager... super gay
- " I've got faaittthhh, of the heearrrttt."... the gayest
12/18/08
Riker and Worf, on the other hand... Dynamic Tension, indeed.
12/18/08
12/18/08
Now how a 10 year old all of a sudden is a 18 year old 4 years later, Ill never know.
12/18/08
12/18/08
It was a disruption in the space-time continuum.
12/18/08
Am I right or am I right! High Five!
12/18/08
12/20/08
12/18/08
12/19/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
Star Trek V: The Anal Frontier
Star Trek: Deep Space Drilling
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
Actually (not many people know this) but a large amount of Kirk Manliness works cyclically. Meaning it's so hetero it loops right back to homo.
Common mistake.
12/20/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
....there is such a wondrous thing?
/evil grin
12/18/08
12/20/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
12/18/08
Neither of them is blue, purple, or green.
What is Star Trek romance if it isn't interspecies?
12/13/08
Wands? WANDS?! You naughty, naughty little birds!
12/13/08
1.) She's a bad writer with no confidence in herself if she didn't believe the message was conveyed in undertones only noticeable to the people that should notice it. It wasn't said explicitly, and it should have been left up to the reader.
2.) The statement was made mere weeks after the final book came out, in her panic for the possible loss of attention she made a hugely controversial statement. Completely unprofessional.
12/13/08
And I thought her revelation was just to make a point about assumptions we make about people's sexuality. I hardly imagine she was starved for attention when she made the statement. Moreover, people were talking about the book, they had information about Dumbledore's past they'd never had before, and it had been just long enough that she could talk about that past without risking spoilers for hardcore fans. Now, if she'd made the statement out of the blue several years after The Deathly Hallows' release after having done nothing else, on the other hand—that would seem like she was just seeking attention.
12/13/08
12/12/08