ufo movie

I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek next generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about that?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think that is a quality idea, he has done a good job on the Star Trek
films he has done.
How about him playing Ed's part in the film too ????

Paul




-----Original Message-----
From: KImberly Gomula [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 29 November 2002 20:43
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] ufo movie

I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek next
generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about that?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25/11/2002


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25/11/2002

I'll let you know what I think of Frakes once I see what he does to
Thunderbirds.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Considering what he's currently doing to Thunderbirds, I think I'd much
rather swan-dive into a Dixie Cup full of cooked okra, left out on the
middle of a busy freeway, than see his approach to UFO.

Michael





_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

I'd have no probs with Jonatnan Frakes directing a UFO movie - but I nix the
idea of him playing Straker. Straker is an elegant, cool, super intelligent
man. Ryker was a pulsing blob of testosterone - a la Kirk. Not that I don't
like Kirk, mind you. I ADORE Kirk. But.....Straker and Kirk are two
different heroic types - viva la differerance! Pam


> I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek next
generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about that?

KImberly Gomula wrote:
>
> I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek next generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about that?


That's not bad. It definitely has possibilities and I think he could
definitely bring the "edge" to a UFO movie that it needs.

Tom Bryant

Implpying what exactly Michael? I haven't seen anything he's done
with Thunderbirds so I can't comment on his work. Have you heard or seen
something that you don't like. Care to share?

Tom Bryant


Michael Wolff wrote:

no trekies involved with ufo movie, are you nuts ??? lets get a high-
quality director that wouldn't destroy the movie like some knucle-
head trekie would...i'd take robert redford before any star trek
director
--- In SHADO@y..., KImberly Gomula <kgomula@c...> wrote:
> I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek
next generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about
that?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

CONTENTS DELETED

It would be a BAD idea to introduce Star Trek influences into UFO.
remember: UFO was sci-fi and Star Tre is Soap. It's all pretty
acedemic as a UFO movie is pretty unlikey to happen and if it was
corrupted like the lost in Space movie would it be worth it any way? I
really fear for the Thunderbirds film if it does make it to the
screen.

Surely the appeal in UFO is, it one series of 26 episodes made over
thirty years ago, with it 1960's vision of the future. I'm sure if a
second series had been made, it would have been so distorted from the
original premise it would have devalued for the first series. The
conspiracy theory regarding as second series makes good copy, but
ultimatlley covers the viewing figures were overall poor. In most
regions it started out prime time, move quickly to Saturday tea time
slot before either being banished to late night midweek or Sunday
lunch with repeat getting mixed up with first runs of the final
epidodes - I think that says it all. I for one would rather remember
it for what it was than get a second rate movie.

It was clear that the series was running out of steam toward the end,
episodes like Time Lash proved this it was quite obvious when
producers expanded the film studio images and introduced the more
paranormal influences tey were running out of good ideas. All the best
epidodes bar one [The Sound Of Silence] were in the first batch.

The Lunadude





--- In SHADO@y..., bedsitter1@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/29/02 3:31:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> paul.dyson10@n... writes:
>
> > How about him playing Ed's part in the film too ????
>
>
>
> How about jumping in a vat of hungry rodents in a suit covered with
cheese?
>
> Two words. Ed and Bishop. But Frakes is a good director, has a light
touch.
>
> Amelia (yes I'm biased )<vbg>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Considering what he's currently doing to Thunderbirds, I think I'd much
> rather swan-dive into a Dixie Cup full of cooked okra, left out on the
> middle of a busy freeway, than see his approach to UFO.

Why, what is he currently doing to Thundrebirds?

Dave.

I agree, Star Trek is pure soap, UFO is sci-fi no Trekkies here.

Although, I would be extremely suprised if UFO was made into a film
and it personally something I would'nt want to especially if it was
currupted in the same vein as Lost In Space movie was. I really fear
for the Thunderbirds move, I hope the people making it really
appreciate that some of the appeal of Thunderbirds is it's 60's kitsch
feel, not slick production and CGI. The same goes for UFO, in that a
chunk of the appeal is the sixties vision of the eighties.

The Lunadude




--- In SHADO@y..., "seahawks1964" <stephenseahawks1@a...> wrote:
> no trekies involved with ufo movie, are you nuts ??? lets get a
high-
> quality director that wouldn't destroy the movie like some knucle-
> head trekie would...i'd take robert redford before any star trek
> director
> --- In SHADO@y..., KImberly Gomula <kgomula@c...> wrote:
> > I was thinking ,why not have Jonathan Frakes(will ryker-star trek
> next generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think
about
> that?
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've heard quite a bit, and extreme little of it to my liking. First
there's the news that Frakes is changing the format of the series to
where International Rescue is actually "Intergalactic Rescue", and
the heroes are rescuing people all over space.

Then along comes the following:

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=13496

Now this may all be simple conjecture and rumor. But, having been
skunked at the theaters before by cinema "revivals" of other
television properties, I find myself with a very bad feeling.

Michael


--- In SHADO@y..., Tom Bryant <tombryant@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Implpying what exactly Michael? I haven't seen anything he's
done
> with Thunderbirds so I can't comment on his work. Have you heard or
seen
> something that you don't like. Care to share?
>
> Tom Bryant
>
>
> Michael Wolff wrote:
> >
> > Considering what he's currently doing to Thunderbirds, I think
I'd much
> > rather swan-dive into a Dixie Cup full of cooked okra, left out
on the trek next
> > >generation)direct . What do you SHADO men and women think about
that?
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"lunadude2001" wrote:
> I agree, Star Trek is pure soap, UFO is sci-fi no Trekkies here.
>

Star Trek is the definitive popular science fiction - possibly
the most influential science-fiction of all.

And no offense -- but I've found UFO to be more Soap than SF myself -- see
Ques of Prior. and Confetti Check AOK. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Gibbon" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ufo movie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony D" <[hidden email]>


> And no offense -- but I've found UFO to be more Soap than SF myself -- see
> Ques of Prior. and Confetti Check AOK. :)

2 episodes out of 26! Really!

--Anny
<rolling eyes, shaking head :-1>

Hi, Anny,

Sunday, December 1, 2002, 11:13:30 PM, you wrote:


AT> ----- Original Message -----
AT> From: "Anthony D" <[hidden email]>


>> And no offense -- but I've found UFO to be more Soap than SF myself -- see
>> Ques of Prior. and Confetti Check AOK. :)

AT> 2 episodes out of 26! Really!

AT> --Anny
AT> <rolling eyes, shaking head :-1>

Okay, pony up your list of that other series' episodes that are "Soap
Opera."

If it's not over 7.6%, then UFO -- just counting those two episodes,
which is a _very_ conservative count -- has more "Soap Opera" episodes
than that other series.

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
[hidden email]

"What'dya expect? I'm a New Yorker!"
-Anonymous New York Firefighter, 9/12/01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Andrew Sheen" <[hidden email]>


> Hi, Anny,

Yo!

> If it's not over 7.6%, then UFO -- just counting those two episodes,
> which is a _very_ conservative count -- has more "Soap Opera" episodes
> than that other series.

Go on with the stats, cher, and why not compare with, say, ST-TOS as for
soapyness...
<snicker>
Or any other you might care to, just as long as it's a bit contemporary...

--Anny

Hi, Anny,

Sunday, December 1, 2002, 11:49:21 PM, you wrote:


AT> ----- Original Message -----
AT> From: "Jonathan Andrew Sheen" <[hidden email]>


>> Hi, Anny,

AT> Yo!

>> If it's not over 7.6%, then UFO -- just counting those two episodes,
>> which is a _very_ conservative count -- has more "Soap Opera" episodes
>> than that other series.

AT> Go on with the stats, cher, and why not compare with, say, ST-TOS as for
AT> soapyness...
AT> <snicker>
AT> Or any other you might care to, just as long as it's a bit contemporary...

Kiddo, you're making the claim, here. I'm not doing your homework for
you. I cordially invite you to show that "Star Trek" had more "soap"
content than UFO. And I'm here to predict you can't do it.

Don't get me wrong, "UFO" is a great series -- if it weren't I wouldn't
be here -- but it's as soapy any version of "Star Trek," and soapier
than some.

And the fact is, it's nothing short of silly to contend that "UFO" --
a series that projected that a secret military organization ten years
in its future would make part of a standard military uniform bright
purple "Toni Tennille" wigs _just_because_they_look_cool_ -- has a
greater claim to being "Science Fiction" than "Star Trek."

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
[hidden email]

"What'dya expect? I'm a New Yorker!"
-Anonymous New York Firefighter, 9/12/01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Andrew Sheen" <[hidden email]>

> Kiddo, you're making the claim, here. I'm not doing your homework for
> you. I cordially invite you to show that "Star Trek" had more "soap"
> content than UFO. And I'm here to predict you can't do it.

*I* didn't start that one, cher...
:-1
Anyway, it's been quite a while since I watched TOS, but, just from memory,
I think those would qualifiy (it's not because there's a bubbling,
haired/scaly/invisible/pointed eared creature somewhere in there or because
it's happening in another dimension/time/space/planet that it's not
soapyesque, right?):

Paradise Syndrome
2 Mudds' eps
City on the edge of forever
For the world is whatever
Elaan of Troyus
Empath
Miri
This side of paradise
Journey to Babel
Operation annihilate

Or... why not every episode with Kirk's bimbo of the week... Or Spock's
bimbo of the month... Or even Scotty, Bones and Chekov's efforts?
8-)

Well, why not consider most of the 3rd season, too...? <giggle>
Don't get me wrong: ST-TOS is a great series...
I even have that nice entire set of video tapes...
I just don't watch it anymore.
;-)
Come to think of it: most are still un-opened...
LOL!
<waving at Klingon, who knows what I mean here>
I like the UFO DVD's betta!

> Don't get me wrong, "UFO" is a great series -- if it weren't I wouldn't
> be here -- but it's as soapy any version of "Star Trek," and soapier
> than some.

And a lot less than others. Seems to be a matter of opinions. I hear that B5
is the soapiest of all... With Voyager close behind... Must be a question
of... POV.
:-1

> And the fact is, it's nothing short of silly to contend that "UFO" --
> a series that projected that a secret military organization ten years
> in its future would make part of a standard military uniform bright
> purple "Toni Tennille" wigs _just_because_they_look_cool_ -- has a
> greater claim to being "Science Fiction" than "Star Trek."

Sure. And those red mini-skirts on females were pure efficiency (I liked the
basket on Janice's head. Nice hairdo: was it a wig? I won't even go about
Shatner's toupee :-), not to mention red shirts for security people (because
it looked good along with the blue and the yellow ones on color TV, if I
remember correctly). Is the "those black pants have no pockets" issue still
doing its rounds, btw? <giggle>

*I* don't remember claiming that UFO was better SF than ST. (Nice alphabet
soup, huh? 8-)

But, well...
Heh heh heh...
I may ponder on this when I've got more time to lose.
:-1

Only thing I can say, though, is that I was a big ST-TOS fan (my collection
is rather interesting... I wonder if I could find someone who'd want it...
<giggle>) and it took the dive once I re-discovered UFO a few years ago.
Now, I rarely (as in almost never) have an urge to watch, or read about
ST... But I'm trying to stay current about UFO, yes I do! 8-)

And *that* collection is beginning to get interesting...
LOL!

Just my opinion (I'm happy to share it and be unanimous about it).

--Anny
:-D