h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Okay, sounds good to me.
So whereabouts can I get a copy of *TheBook* from? And how much does it cost?
Another question, why does the Star Trek in the works of fiction (novels) follow a strict path that is completely different to that in the TV series etc.?

Because StarTrek on paper sucks....*grin*

You can buy the book at any good and big bookstore. Here in Holland it cost about $50 when I last saw it about a year ago. I went back the next day and it was gone....bummer....

TM.

With luck, we may be able to track it down when we are in London for the meet! I hope that you are coming again BB
shazz

I have shed loads of Star Trek stuff, but I've never seen the Bible. I have most of the Fact Files, but my newsagent cancelled it as I was sick, and didn't pick them up for a bit.

Awww! You should give them a ring at Faabri and ask to start from your last missing issue then I have found them to be very helpful
shazz

I too used to collect the Star Trek Fact Files and Star Trek Monthly until last summer, when some things had to go in order to scrape enough dosh together to pay the loan I took out for my 'puter 'coz we iz on Income Support.

However, h2g2, all my new friends and my luverly new 'puter make up for the lack of Fact Files!

I've found my local library can get hold of almost anything either to borrow or buy (if that's any help at all in obtaining a copy of the Star Trek Bible). I've got the Encyclopedia and a few other similar publications like the Technical Manual, plus heaps of paper backs which I enjoy (they turn up in charity shops quite regularly) and are always an easy read, which is essential with the constant interruptions I get from my two sproggs, three dogs, five cats and long suffering hubby (I can even manage to read them when it's a "Rugrats" weekend of Nickelodeon!!!)

I've also got the entire original series on video which is something I've always longed for! My mother gave me heaps of dosh as a Christmas present at about the same time that "Forbidden Planet" had an incredible half price offer with the original series on!!

Shazz... I also loved that DS9 episode, "Little Green Men"! It did make eye larf lots!!!! Even my kids enjoyed it! I would put it on a par with the original series' "A Piece of the Action", "The Trouble With Tribbles" (I have a Tribble BTW) and DS9's "Trials & Tribulations"....

I agree that "Trials and Tribulations" is a classic - I even did a spoof cartoon of that called "The Trouble With Scribbles" on a "Space Trek" cartoon series I did for fun when a kid... I enjoyed doing them. I think I ended up with over 15 different stories.

I have the Tribble Handbook with some fun facts in it... including a page on *How to stuff a wild tribble*
shazz

AH that... I got that for my birthday last year from Andrew (who isn't on the guide). I enjoyed that.
Also remember:
Tribbles in "More Tribbles, More Troubles" - Animated Series
and "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock".
I've got 15 of the (23?ish?) Animated episodes on tape - they started showing them last year, and then stopped. Does anyone know where I can get the rest from?

I can't find the exact post but somebody asked why the StarTrek-books and animations are so much different from the regular Trek.
I found this at www.startrek.com :


Q. How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe?

A. As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)


Glad to be of service

TM.

Thanks TM - once again it proves that you're a frood who knows where his Towel is.
(Unlike Shazz - you know I'm never gonna forget that )

"Trials and Tribble-ations" is the only episode tape I've ever been moved to pay full price for - I saw it at a Convention, and was waiting outside the video shop when they opened the day it was released

Oh for heaven's sake, TM, I was being flippant. I knew exactly what context you were using the term "TV history" in, but I decided to use your comment to make a point of my own. Star Trek should have died a long time ago. Preferably after the Original Series and subsequent movies. Certainly Voyager should never have been made, nor should the next series - whatever that might be called.

You are certainly incorrect in thinking that I dislike science-fiction. I am the most avid fan, particularly of Doctor Who, Blake's 7, Sapphire and Steel, Red Dwarf, Hitchhikers (obviously), Babylon 5... I'm even rather fond of the new BBC series of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased). And yes I have even been known to enjoy the odd Trekkie story. Indeed I used to run the Merseyside Star Trek Fan Club... I even run a Star Trek focussed sci-fi chat room at www.phoenix50.com

And I think you'll find Quatermass was the first series to do a "serious" take on sci-fi. Doctor Who was using scientific advisors to keep the content accurate before they even started shooting on The Cage. And don't even get me started on Doctor Who and hidden messages, or Doctor Who and serious sci-fi writers throwing themselves at it.

Get informed before you comment, TM

/Mike

"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!" -- Harlan Ellison (writer - Star Trek: City on the Edge of Forever)

(Ellison was also a creative consultant to Babylon 5)

Didn't you mean Star Trek and "The Cage", not Dr Who?

I hope you don't mind me interrupting - I'm a fan of both, but I don't think TM was really arguing with you, merely saying that regardless of good or bad, Star Trek is part of history. If you accept that, and confess that "I decided to use your comment to make a point of my own", then why are you arguing? He merely tried to explain something which he feared you did not understand.

And long live B5!

Yes, yes indeed. This conflict is pointless.

My post was motivated by several statements by TM that I felt were untrue, as well as to clarify that I did fully understand what he meant by TV history, but was knowingly twisting it.

And with regard to The Cage... Doctor Who was employing scientific advisors before Star Trek even started work on The Cage - hence TM's statement about Star Trek being the first series to employ scientists to keep the content accurate is wrong.

/Mike

Hello Marwood,

This is indeed a rather useless discussion but you started it

As far as I know every SF-animal considers 2001 the beginning of the 'real' filmed Science Fiction (don't ask me why, that's another thread). I agree as far as movie-effects and accuracy were concerned but I did not like the ending as it is just as cryptic as the rest is crystal-clear. anyway, I obviously know you like SF or you probably wouldn't be on this thread, right ?

My only problem with most of the other series is that they are on the average so terribly low-budget, take Dr. Who. This of course has it's charm but I have been reading SF for about 25 to 30 years now and I can read between the lines of a book and actually 'see' it happening, a wild imagination helps, right ? So when I watch Dr. Who the incredibly squalid special effects just don't do the stories justice. I personally have always liked the stories but there's more to a TV-SF-series than a story. That's what books are for and that's why I still read SF-books.

If they are not low-budget then these series are usually wildly inaccurate, take Space1999 for example(yuk!), one could write books about the flaws .

So in general(and I really mean in general) British SF-tv usually lacks the proper visual settings and effect but the stories are quite good, and the americans excell in special effects but the storylines are usuallly bollocks ! This is why I think StarTrek is (still) a series worth watching, they it's a mix of the two.

I believe that this also the reason why The Guide was/is so succesful. It was a radio-play, no special visual effects required and a fantastic job by the BBC Radiophonic workshop. The British are brilliant at producing radioplays. I wouldn't be surpris if Dr. Who started out as one(?).

To finish my rant : This is not to say that StarTrek is the ultimate SF-series, that one still has to be created. I hope they never will...life would get dull.

So, is this enough input to tall another day or so about StarTrek ?

Kind regards,

TM.

I forgot to say this : You are absolutely right in stating that StarTrek did NOT do these things first. But they were the first to actually do it all(effects, famous contributors, consistency, etc.).

Oh yeah : if StarTrek went on too long what about Dr. Who ??? How long's that been on then ? About 35 years or so ? Anyone have the answer to that one ? It must be the longest running tv-sf in history...

TM.

And as much as I admire Harlan Ellison I can counter his quote with quotes by Arthur C. Clarke, Larry Niven(who also wrote an episode), Robert Heinlein, Theodore Sturgeon(another episode), etcetera.

That's just personal taste, we all have that thank God, that's why we're all still talking I think...

TM

'He who does not just love StarTrek but all SF that is well conceived...)'

My view, TM, is different.
People who enjoy programmes like "Dr. Who" and "Blakes 7" will enjoy them regardless of special effects - because it is the Story, and not the effects, which make it good. I mean, "Titanic" has terrible special effects as all the people looked like Penguins in the way they walked, yet many of those who watched it didn't care as they found all the scenes that didn't have Leo in to be boring and pointless anyway.
Even "Star Wars: A New Hope" has bad effects - the briefing on
how the Rebels will destroy the Death Star and the computer
images on screen - look, they are pathetic. We could do better
animation. But it DOESN'T MATTER because it's they story we
want, not the effects.