Thursday, November 6, 2008

Template flip-flopping

As you can see, the look of the blog is still in a state of flux. However, I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick with this template for now. I'd really prefer something with more of a 1980s retro-futuristic feel, but I'm neither a designer nor an XML coder, and the only software that would provide the kind of WYSIWYG XML editing that I need is not cheap. Plus, fiddling with the look of the blog has been very time-consuming, and I honestly have better things to do (work, for example).

So, unless a perfect template drops out of the sky complete with hexagons and old EPCOT pavilion logos, this is the way things will look around here.

Thanks for hanging in there.


  1. It's similar to the pilot episode of Enterprise. I remember people being all up in arms over the Klingons. TOS has very bland Klingons, even the episode of DS9 when the crew travels back in time and is integrated in the TOS the Trouble with Tribbles Dax asks Worf about the difference in appearance and Worf responds with something along the lines of "I don't want to talk about it." If I recall, and it has been a very long time since I have seen the episode, something happened in the past that "changed" the Klingons, but nothing was explained. Then all of a sudden, Enterprise comes, which takes place roughly one hundred years before Kirk. Paramount offered no explanation for the discrepancy except that technology is better now than it was in the sixties so the makeup could be better. It's not a major thing, and it takes a fan to notice, but it is enough to cheapen the experience; it takes it from being the polemic show Roddenberry dreamed to a cheap exploitation for profit. Like the Walt Disney Company after Eisner took the reigns.

  2. Welcome agingerbugg, thanks for commenting!

    It's interesting that you bring up the Disney/Eisner parallel. What Michael Eisner tried to do with Disney was a lot like what Rick Berman tried to do when he inherited the Star Trek mantle from Gene Roddenberry. Both men were business-minded executives with no creative talent. In fact, I think you've just given me an idea for a new post.


  3. From what I've read, Eisner did have some degree of creative talent - it was why he and Frank Wells (who did not have much in the way of creative talent apparently) made such a good team. Ego aside, Eisner had some good creative input into the company, especially at first. (Source: Disney War by James B. Stewart)


Thanks for taking the time to comment!