Durakken

It would be nice if you read what is said and not just go make up things that are not.

"Humanity" is not the same as "Mankind." Shard_Warrior is very clearly confusing the two as if they mean the same thing. "Humanity" is what Star Trek is about, but not "Mankind". Thus the argument that Star Trek can't have an alien captain because it's not "mankind" is wrong. Every race/alien in Star Trek speaks of an aspect of "Humanity"


Somewhat true... The problem with JJ Abrams Star Trek is that there are several time travel stories that clearly show all the variations of time travel and how each one works... JJTrek's Time Travel via blackhole could only have resulted in the original timeline being obliterated. The time travel they are suggesting is the multiple universe version and this never happens with time travel in Star Trek.... in fact it can't because people can't exist in other universes, other than their mirror universe.

Clearly it is messed up.

You are mixing "Mankind" up with "Humanity"

What i described in many words is the "humanity" where as you are talking about "mankind"

One would think calling grandma's house would get you the answer of whether there's a tornado or not coming ^.^

See this is where you mess up your understanding...

Star Trek is not an exploration of "mankind" but rather the philosophies, the thoughts, the emotions, the wonder, our troubles, and even taking a mirrored reflection to see how horrible or brilliant we are or could be if we were to follow this or that path.

Vulcans display a culture completely consumed by Rationalism...which isn't rational at all.
Klingons display a culture of war that leads to strife and internal problems and eventual destruction.
Romulans display a culture of xenophobia that leads to stagnation, paranoia, and destruction
Ferengi display a culture of corporate excess that leads to a culture that really can't make up its mind.

The Federation is not "humanity" it's an ideal to follow, the freedom, curiosity, balance of the other aspects displayed in the other groups.

TOS dealt with dealing with the unknown horizons with these ideals (less sophisticated version but still)
TNG dealt with maintaining those ideals
DS9 dealt with the problems of ideals in war
Voy dealt with those ideals in isolation
Ent dealt with the formation of those ideals

I don't see why ST couldn't deal with those ideals when challenged with near omnipotence or the ability to right past events.

I also don't see why an alien race couldn't be captain to get that perspective

Nor do I see why one couldn't view past alien cultures through the eyes of the federation ideals. Especially one where the culture was more advanced and so how do you deal with a culture that doesn't act like yours when you think you're right...especially a culture that lead to your own.

I don't see how that is valid or accurate description of Serkis...

According to wiki's definition of character actor it's someone who doesn't act in accordance with how the author wrote the character... but he as far as i can tell does nothing but do the upmost to get the most accurate representation of a character... As far as him having CGI layered onto his performance so he's not really acting as quite insulting. It's like saying "you're not a true actor because you have a script where as I improv!"

However it goes to show what I'm saying...It's not the acting skill that is important in this lsit or just about any when people think about "Great" actors.

i don't see why... The categories are just there to include more swords.

Hint, different back story...

I'm not talking about replacing the character but keeping the character and changing the race of said character. Steve Rogers being black wouldn't work because of racial discrimination at the time. Instead of being looked at as a hero, as Captain America, he'd be hidden away or looked at as a weapon and not as someone to look up to.

Keanu is as good as or better an actor as a number of the "top people" on that list. The difference between them is that Keanu picks the stoic non-emotive role all the time while those "great" actors pick the same expressive role all the time. Micheal Clark Duncan hardly ever plays the same role and shows massive acting chops yet you think he doesn't deserve to be on a list where the majority don't act but rather play themselves and the character in the script just match up. If that's how you are going to judge then Keanu belong on that list as much if not more than a number of those guys.

>.> Actually 2 clues were given... that it was plainly obvious.

But it occurs to me that "the question" is not 1 question but several

Who is River Song?
What is the Silence?
Where
Why does River Song kill he doctor?
When does the Doctor Die?
How does the doctor come back?

The culmination of all of those is... What is Life?

Or a joking response to "The silence will fall" is "Yes, but will it get up again?"

Not really scary all that stuff is either avoidable pretty easily, unlikely to happen to most people, or if you have to live in the area that it happens a lot in its unavoidable and why be scared of things that are unavoidable?

Not really concerned about material stuff. If it doesn't kill or torture me doesn't matter to me ^.^

Tornado's are easily spotted long before they actually do any damage any where. They move, but for the most part you can get out of their way with ease either by driving like a mile or two away or simply going into a basement.

I always felt that the scary part of any sort of disaster wasn't the disaster bu human stupidity that occurred in either not preventing, causing, or reacting to the disaster... For example my former high school has a tornado plan that requires 300+ people to walk down a decent length hallway where one side is practically all glass to get to the "save area." Seeing that I thought, why wouldn't i just stay in my classroom which is obviously safer than that hall way, go home before a tornado was any where close, or go in the much closer underground tunnels that everyone knows about and are accessible closer from just about every point of the school where the students would be. Following the schools plan ensures panic and injury and possibly death either from the students freaking and feeding off the fear of each other and/or the glass breaking and being launched at the students who would have no defense other than other student meat shields.

as far as ties... that's hard to explain without personal details. Disastrous events would help support starting somewhere else more easily if they happened. About the only thing I would lose that would really effect me is my tech or 1 person but the tech is replaceable and the 1 person I couldn't save anyways if I was in that type of situation. I don't have a job and If i was guarenteed a job anywhere doing something i could do i'd leave where i am as quick as possible. I have no connection to any community. And as far as family most of them i could give a **** less about or I don't need to and the 1 person i care enough about to stick around as it is it'd be better to leave, restart, and bring them to live with me...

so >.> yeah no ties really and everything else just seems more practical to not be afraid of and think it through...and act calmly and rationally which most humans don't do >.>