DrCrowTStarwars

This is the only way I know them but that seems like pretty sad news to me:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB4MYuzu5k

Not as dark as their black hearts!

SilverWook said:

What if they are nudists?

 Then I'll set their private parts on fire.

TV's Frink said:

The clothes or the people?

 Both,I don't want to see ugly people naked and if I burn ugly clothes then I would be doing them a favor.

Then I will set fire to their clothes and pray they are not ugly.

twister111 said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

doubleKO said:

Freaking impossible-to-read captchas... insult added to injury as I am left to infer that I am no more perceptive than the robot they assume me to be.

 Yeah what makes it worse is half the time the only reason I see these stupid things is because some website has glitched and is refusing to remember my password when I enter it.

Those things should be banned.

Almost as bad as when they squeeze the letters together in such a way that it could mean 3 or 4 different letters and 3 or 4 different combos of those letters. Like trying to figure out if it's inm or nim or iim or imi or imn.

 Oh I hate that!  If I ever come across the person who's idea that was I will set fire to their hair!

I was able to find a Latin book on Amazon for about $15 a couple of years ago.  It's nice to know a little Latin when you study ancient Rome.

It is getting easier and cheaper to learn a new language.  Check the libraries in your area,mine always seem to have a bunch of courses on CD and DvD and those are free!

With Genesis it was explained that it only worked for Spock because his body landed there at the right moment and the device was made with banned matter that caused the whole planet to blow up. So you would have to blow up a planet every time you wanted someone back and you would run the risk of them aging to death.  Then you have the issue of memories.  The new person looks the same but they don't have the memories. Spock only got his memories back because he put them in McCoy.  So genesis was not a cure all for death the way Khan's blood was.  Oh Khan still comes from before the time line was altered so how come he had a death cure in his blood but the old Khan didn't?

SilverWook said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.  I mean if the Empire's ships can travel that fast then there is no way Han could ever escape them with the falcon traveling at a mere point five past light speed and besides if we go by what is shown instead of dialog then in Star Trek five the Enterprise traveled from earth to the center of the galaxy in a couple of hours.

 

The infamous "no lasers" argument.

In one particular episode of TNG, we heard the following exchange:

DATA: Sensors report a minimum range combat craft of the Squadron Class, twenty-six crew.

WORF: Captain, they have locked lasers.

PICARD: Lasers?

RIKER: That won't even penetrate our navigational deflectors.

Literary method: they seem to be saying that their navigational deflectors are immune to lasers, probably because lasers are supposed to be less advanced than phasers. Some people feel that this means any Federation ship could shrug off any laser, even a monster laser that can blow up planets. Others feel that Riker was factoring the ship's small size into account, and that his statement was not meant to be so over-arching. However, it is impossible to conclusively resolve this argument one way or another unless we can get some kind of official statement from the author on the episode, and that's not forthcoming.

Suspension of Disbelief: it is scientifically impossible for any kind of shield to block infinite amounts of laser energy, because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits 100% efficiency devices and light carries momentum equal to U/c, so there are two mechanisms through which increased power levels would eventually overwhelm any blocking system. Therefore, Riker was either an idiot or he was taking the enemy ship's small size into account when he made his statement. Case closed.

The Federation controls a portion of a single quadrant of the galaxy. The Galactic Empire controls their entire galaxy.

When the U.S.S. Voyager was flung to the other side of the galaxy they estimated it would take 75 years to make it back home.

In Star Wars their galaxy can be traversed from one end to the other in a matter of weeks.

 That still leaves Star trek five out there where an unfinished and damaged Enterprise was able to travel from Earth(A planet out near the edge of the galaxy)to the center of the galaxy in a matter of hours. One thing that I am surprised has not been brought up is maybe the ships have the same top speed or they are slow enough for the falcon with a top speed of point five past light speed to be one of the fastest ships in the galaxy,maybe the galaxy Star Wars takes place in is much smaller then our own.  Galaxies come in different sizes and all we know is that the Star Wars galaxy is far far away.  If it was much smaller then our own that would explain a lot of things including the falcon being fast despite it being too slow to get anywhere in our galaxy in under a few months or years,and all the planets seeming to be so close to each other.

 Where in the movie is it said the ship is unfinished and damaged? It needs a lot of debugging though. It speaks ill of the Starfleet shipyards that the Enterprise A was even launched with that many problems with it's systems. Must have been the low bidder that fitted her out. ;)

 You are right it was bugs not being unfinished.  Still can you blame me for being confused?  I mean the doors didn't even work for crying out loud,it's no wonder my brain remembers it as being unfinished! You know the computer seemed to be working so badly I just assumed it was running off of the 23rd century version of Vista. I mean good night!

SilverWook said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Here is what the writers of the new trek just don't understand. The reasons we love Kirk and he has become a timeless character have nothing to do with internet memes about how awesome Kirk is.  We don't love Kirk because he beds green alien woman,we don't love Kirk because he kicks everyone's asses in fistfights,and we don't love him because he refuses to obey the rules.  No we love him because he has a strong moral core in addition to those things and without that moral core he is nothing. remember the framing device for Star trek is that these are entries from kirk's official logs that go to starfleet so every time he breaks the rules he is putting it in the ship's log,that is how much his word means to him.  He know it could cost him his job but he is not about to lie or put his crew in the position of having to cover up for him when he breaks the rules. If he breaks them it's for a good moral reason and his only defense he explaining why he felt the rules had to be broken that is one reason we love him.

 This.

 Yeah that is why I will never watch ITD because I felt like I was watching the writers stab Kirk in the back be removing his moral core and if the character doesn't have that then I can't really root for him so I am not invested in what is going on.  The way he treats Spock for not lying is just so far out of character I don't think you can even call him Kirk any more.  That is without the other problems this film has like there being a cure for death in a bottle. How is any action scene in any future Star Trek movie supposed to have any tension if there are a bunch of frozen people out there who have a cure for death in their blood?

 Alternate timeline. This Kirk hasn't had all the same experiences, not to mention he didn't grow up with his father around.

The transporter in theory can be used to restore someone to life, but that has been avoided for decades. We're never going to hear from Khan's magic blood again.

 That doesn't make him any less unlikable.  Under that logic anyone who grew up without a father should be allowed to do anything he wants and no one should be able to say anything about it.  Also why bring the character back if that isn't the character they want to write?  if the character is nothing like Kirk then why call him Kirk?  If it's just for marketing then how does that make ITD a good movie and how does it change the fact that Kirk is going down the same path is was in the first movie only this time he is even more of a jerk?

Oh no the transporter has to have a living pattern so it can't bring people back to life and sweeping the blood under the carpet is just stupid since it makes it look like the characters are idiots.  if in future movies you have to pretend this stuff doesn't exist then it shouldn't have been included in the script in the first place. Any first year creative writing student could tell you that.  So you have your character backslide so that all his growth in the last film never happened,and you have stuff in your script that you will have to pretend never existed in all future scripts. How is that good writing again?  it's not good writing and I don't care how you explain it if your "hero" is a complete jerk who never learns anything then I am not going to root for him or care about the story and it's the writer's job to make me care so that is not just bad writing for a feature film it's below the level of most fan fiction.  This script that writers were paid money for has problems that wouldn't be accepted in fan fiction that is written for free. That is just bad.

I wanted to like this movie,i went in expecting it to be good,but it has displaced A night in Sickbay as the worst thing ever to be filmed under the Star trek name. I meant it when I said i thought Khan would make a better captain then "kirk" in this movie.

here is the real problem in a nutshell.  We were told that the reason the franchise was being rebooted was so we could get back to basics and return to the characters that are loved. So if that was the goal then shouldn't they be trying to capture what made the characters so loved in the first place?  What is the point of doing this if what we love about the characters is just tossed in a garbage can?  I mean if the goal is to show that a Kirk who grew up without his father would be a jerk couldn't that be handled by one film or one episode of the Tv show,I think we get the point now.Is the point of the Star trek franchise from this point on just to say kirk didn't have his daddy so now he is a jerk? I think we get the point,can we move on now? Oh and this father who is so important to kirk becoming a hero was never mentioned once in three years of live action TV,two of animation,and seven movies,that is how important George Kirk was.

As i said they didn't reboot Doctor Who by having the Doctor bed Rose,have him played by the Rock,and having him gun down people in the street. They stayed true to the character while updating the format and the situations he was in,that is how you do a reboot.

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Here is what the writers of the new trek just don't understand. The reasons we love Kirk and he has become a timeless character have nothing to do with internet memes about how awesome Kirk is.  We don't love Kirk because he beds green alien woman,we don't love Kirk because he kicks everyone's asses in fistfights,and we don't love him because he refuses to obey the rules.  No we love him because he has a strong moral core in addition to those things and without that moral core he is nothing. remember the framing device for Star trek is that these are entries from kirk's official logs that go to starfleet so every time he breaks the rules he is putting it in the ship's log,that is how much his word means to him.  He know it could cost him his job but he is not about to lie or put his crew in the position of having to cover up for him when he breaks the rules. If he breaks them it's for a good moral reason and his only defense he explaining why he felt the rules had to be broken that is one reason we love him.

 This.

 Yeah that is why I will never watch ITD because I felt like I was watching the writers stab Kirk in the back be removing his moral core and if the character doesn't have that then I can't really root for him so I am not invested in what is going on.  The way he treats Spock for not lying is just so far out of character I don't think you can even call him Kirk any more.  That is without the other problems this film has like there being a cure for death in a bottle. How is any action scene in any future Star Trek movie supposed to have any tension if there are a bunch of frozen people out there who have a cure for death in their blood?

doubleofive said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I heard that J. Michael Straczynski pitched the idea for a reboot of TOS to Paramount some years back, and I can't help but wonder how it would have turned out if they had gone through with making it*.

 

*Still probably better than everything I've read about Abramstrek. 

Funny you should mention that:

http://trek-fm.squarespace.com/standard-orbit/38

Here's the pitch if you want to check it out.

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

 Wow,I have had my problems with some of JMS's writing in the past decade so I wasn't expecting to like this but I did.  I really like that pitch and the DNA idea that would give them a mystery to explore and explain why all the aliens are budget friendly.  i would much rather have gotten that series then the last two movies.  Too bad:(

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.  I mean if the Empire's ships can travel that fast then there is no way Han could ever escape them with the falcon traveling at a mere point five past light speed and besides if we go by what is shown instead of dialog then in Star Trek five the Enterprise traveled from earth to the center of the galaxy in a couple of hours.

 

The infamous "no lasers" argument.

In one particular episode of TNG, we heard the following exchange:

DATA: Sensors report a minimum range combat craft of the Squadron Class, twenty-six crew.

WORF: Captain, they have locked lasers.

PICARD: Lasers?

RIKER: That won't even penetrate our navigational deflectors.

Literary method: they seem to be saying that their navigational deflectors are immune to lasers, probably because lasers are supposed to be less advanced than phasers. Some people feel that this means any Federation ship could shrug off any laser, even a monster laser that can blow up planets. Others feel that Riker was factoring the ship's small size into account, and that his statement was not meant to be so over-arching. However, it is impossible to conclusively resolve this argument one way or another unless we can get some kind of official statement from the author on the episode, and that's not forthcoming.

Suspension of Disbelief: it is scientifically impossible for any kind of shield to block infinite amounts of laser energy, because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits 100% efficiency devices and light carries momentum equal to U/c, so there are two mechanisms through which increased power levels would eventually overwhelm any blocking system. Therefore, Riker was either an idiot or he was taking the enemy ship's small size into account when he made his statement. Case closed.

The Federation controls a portion of a single quadrant of the galaxy. The Galactic Empire controls their entire galaxy.

When the U.S.S. Voyager was flung to the other side of the galaxy they estimated it would take 75 years to make it back home.

In Star Wars their galaxy can be traversed from one end to the other in a matter of weeks.

 That still leaves Star trek five out there where an unfinished and damaged Enterprise was able to travel from Earth(A planet out near the edge of the galaxy)to the center of the galaxy in a matter of hours. One thing that I am surprised has not been brought up is maybe the ships have the same top speed or they are slow enough for the falcon with a top speed of point five past light speed to be one of the fastest ships in the galaxy,maybe the galaxy Star Wars takes place in is much smaller then our own.  Galaxies come in different sizes and all we know is that the Star Wars galaxy is far far away.  If it was much smaller then our own that would explain a lot of things including the falcon being fast despite it being too slow to get anywhere in our galaxy in under a few months or years,and all the planets seeming to be so close to each other.

Here is the big problem with Abram's Trek,they are not exploring and Kirk is a selfish lying jerk who doesn't care about anyone but himself.  i was fine with that in the first movie.  I figured the first film needed to be an action film so the studio would back it and Kirk's character arc was that of a selfish person learning to look beyond himself and think of the greater good.  They did a pretty good job showing Kirk going from selfish and spoiled to hero and showing him bonding with Spock.  It's the second movie that ruined it.  It showed and Abrams and these writers have one trick up their sleeve,so it's another action movie and Kirk is an even bigger jerk and he is on the exact same character arc,except this time it doesn't feel right and we can't root for him. Since we saw him learn his lesson last time now it doesn't feel like growth it feels like he is being a jerk on purpose and just doesn't give two figs about his crew or his friends.  I tell you the reason I didn't feel anything when he died wasn't because it was a cheap rip off of one of the best death scenes in the history of film,and it had nothing to do with the fact that I knew he would be alive again in the next scene. No,I didn't care because I was rooting for him to die and I truly believe Khan would make the better hero.

Here is what the writers of the new trek just don't understand. The reasons we love Kirk and he has become a timeless character have nothing to do with internet memes about how awesome Kirk is.  We don't love Kirk because he beds green alien woman,we don't love Kirk because he kicks everyone's asses in fistfights,and we don't love him because he refuses to obey the rules.  No we love him because he has a strong moral core in addition to those things and without that moral core he is nothing. remember the framing device for Star trek is that these are entries from kirk's official logs that go to starfleet so every time he breaks the rules he is putting it in the ship's log,that is how much his word means to him.  He know it could cost him his job but he is not about to lie or put his crew in the position of having to cover up for him when he breaks the rules. If he breaks them it's for a good moral reason and his only defense he explaining why he felt the rules had to be broken that is one reason we love him.

If you really want to understand Kirk and why he is so popular watch Amok Time and really pay attention to what is going on. It's fifty-two minutes of showing the type of man Kirk is and why he is a hero.  Here like in ITD he violates orders to save Spock but he doesn't for a moment cover it up. Also he could have told Star fleet why he needed to go to Vulcan so he wouldn't get in trouble but he gave Spock his word that he wouldn't talk to anyone about the situation so when asked point blank what does he do? He doesn't answer the question but he also doesn't lie. Kirk will not do that unless there is no other choice because he is a man of his word and he knows that his crew and commanding officers need to be able to trust his word,so he just refuses to answer and he knows there is a good chance he will lose his command over this but he gave his word and he would rather lose his command then break his word or lie and that to me explains completely how he keeps his command because his commanding officers know he has good judgement and he will always tell them the whole truth,so they know if he says there is a good reason for violating orders it's true. That is also at the core of how he is able to defuse situations that could lead to war,he has a reputation as a man of his word and that is what is not covered by internet memes and it has more to do with why we love Kirk then anything they mention.  The Kirk from the original series is a fully fledged heroic character.  The Kirk in these movies is an internet meme come to life.

I wouldn't have a problem with the movies being all action if there was a TV show on with exploring but since there isn't these movies are painful to sit through in that way to,because they are the only Star trek out there and it seems unlikely Star trek will ever return to the small screen.  So for the rest of time and in most people's minds Star Trek is now just another big dumb summer action movie franchise and that is just sad:(

m_s0 said:

doubleofive said:

You have to hear Mike's side. I believe he feels that Trek 09 is the best movie, as in general audience movie. He and I just did a commentary on Wrath of Khan this weekend (coming soon), so he's familiar with it. I enjoy the hell out of 09 (see our conversation on "The Whole Pre-Re-Quel Thing"). It's fun and it's getting people interested in the franchise.

I disagree. It doesn't get people interested in Star Trek. It gets people interested in the Star Trek reboots, which really bear little, if any, resemblance to Star Trek.

I've talked to a lot of people during the past couple of years about ST 09 and ST(I)D (har har) and every single one of them felt that even though they liked the reboots, they don't feel like giving the TV series or even the older movies a chance. It's odd, but the Star Trek stigma is still a thing. Kind of funny how people seem to subconsciously realize that this new Star Trek has nothing to do with actual Star Trek, hence why it's OK to enjoy it and even admit that publicly ;)

Here's something else that's funny: I've been recommending Wrath of Khan to a buddy of mine (a programmer and generally speaking a nerd) ever since the first STID trailer came out, but he refuses to watch it. Why? Because it's Star Trek. He loved STID, though, and didn't have any qualms about watching it.

All of the above is even more amusing considering that those old Star Trek movies (aside from the first one) were made with a general audience in mind.

This brings me to the "best general audience movie" part. If by best you (or he) mean it's dumbed down (and thus easy to stomach by non-nerds) and just doesn't require any involvement on the viewer's part, emotional or otherwise, than yeah, it's the best "Star Trek" movie hands down. By that logic Bay's Transformers (shitty script, unsatisfying, downright incomprehensible action scenes etc. Just a badly made expensive piece of crap) is a masterpiece. If by saying "best" he refers to the quality of the movie... consider me baffled.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I might do that to get some fuel for the inevitable hate mail/post that will follow ;)

Oh, and btw: I enjoyed ST 09 for what it was.

 Thank you.

I enjoyed Star Trek 09 but would never call it real Trek and ITD was one of the worst Sci-Fi movies I have ever seen and everything in it was just ripped off from a better movie or TV show.  Really I don't see how you can call it the best.  Heck the people I talk to who hate Star Trek and liked the movie when it came out seem to have forgotten about it or just see it as another throw away action movie that they had no reason to watch again once it was out of theaters,this is hardly good news for Trek. 

You want to see how to do a reboot for a show that had a bad reputation that gets general viewers to give the new show a shot? Look at Doctor Who.  This may be hard to believe but I became a fan in 95 so I know before the show came back it was viewed as a piece of low budget trash and it's fans were mocked even in some sci-fi circles.  I mean I knew people who would only admit they were fans on Doctor Who message boards on the internet because admitting you were a fan in public was the quickest way to get mocked at all times.  Then there was the fact that most people didn't even know what the show was.  But look what happened after the reboot,now it's on the cover of magazines,you can buy T-Shirts in Wal-Mart,and I know people who started watching the reboot but rank a classic Doctor as their favorite. So what happened?  Well In Doctor Who's case you had a smart producers who updated what needed to be updated like the format but also stayed true to what the show was about and kept The Doctor in character. It was marketed as a new show so people didn't need to know about the old one to enjoy it but because it stayed true to what the show was about and the character was not messed with when people went back and watched the classic episodes on DvD for the first time they were able to look past the bad special effects and see the things that they loved about the new show were there the whole time.  I know so many people who used to see Doctor Who as silly or didn't even know it existed who now watch the classic series without shame because it is part of the same universe as the new show that got them into the franchise.  if you ask me that is how you breath new life into a franchise. You don't dumb it down or rewrite the characters,you just update the format while staying true to the characters.

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.  I mean if the Empire's ships can travel that fast then there is no way Han could ever escape them with the falcon traveling at a mere point five past light speed and besides if we go by what is shown instead of dialog then in Star Trek five the Enterprise traveled from earth to the center of the galaxy in a couple of hours.

But the big one for me is that if you are not traveling at warp speed then any ship traveling at that speed just vanishes from you perspective(I assume this is how Han could escape so many times just by jumping to lightspeed a few seconds before the ships chasing him,they couldn't see him to follow)and by the time you aim at something it is not there any more,so how does the empire protect it's self from ships that can fire at them while traveling at warp speed? Also we saw that all it takes is a few shots from one small fighter to take out the bridge of the largest star destroyer in return of the Jedi. Then there is the problem of transporters just beaming bombs on to ships. Oh and even if we take Han's statement that it would take a "Thousand star destroyers" to blow up a planet as a figure of speech that still leave them way behind starfleet in terms of fire power.  Let's say Han was way off and it would only take one third of that number to destroy a planet.  Alright so we have around three hundred ship to destroy a planet. That sounds pretty good.  Except that Han's remake seems to imply that he finds it hard to believe the empire has that number of ships,at least the line is delivered in such a way that we are lead to believe Han a character who seems to know how things work in the universe at large doesn't believe there could be enough ships out there to do the job. Meanwhile we saw that many ship committed to a single battle several times on DS9 and it was made clear there were other fleets of equal size still out there.  Still even if the numbers are even it was made clear in several episodes of the original Star trek that the Enterprise has more then enough firepower to blow up planets without breaking a sweat they just choose not to.  So one Ship on the federation side has the same firepower as the super weapon that took the Empire two decades to build or equal to about three hundred of the empire's ships.

Sorry but between this,warp combat,the federation ships being safe from lasers,and the transporter as big a Star Wars fan as i am I think things are much more complex then that chart makes out and it doesn't seem to agree with anything we have seen or heard on screen in either franchise. Tech manuals are all well and good but if we go by dialog and what is shown on screen I don't think the Empire stands a chance. Oh and if you put Sisko at the head of the Federation fleet,watch out!:)

Now if you want to see the Empire wipe the floor with some other Franchise I think only the Vorlons on Babylon 5 would stand a chance and i don't think they would help the rest of the galaxy.  The Empire would crush any fleet in the B5 universe.

Yeah and as i kid I never understood how saying one set of fictional ships could blow up the other set proved that fictional universe was better.  Surely whichever one provides you with more enjoyment is the better universe.

Still I was a huge Star Wars fan but I never thought the Star Wars ships would stand a chance in that battle.

Love this. I am a fan of both but when i was a kid i never understood these debates. Star Trek ships have shields,lasers don't damage them,and they can fired while going faster then light speed. That means that they can fire while the ships from star wars can't even see them. The tech on star trek is just too far ahead for the battle to even last a minute. Sorry it doesn't end well for the ships of Star Wars:(

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

he has never seemed fond of the character

 He was fond enough to actually get the character's tattoos done for real.

 Oh really?  I heard I went on some rant around about the time season eight came out about how much he hated the character.  Maybe there is hope then.

Google killed my family you sick monster!

Oh I thought this game was only coming out for the PS4 and Xbox One.  I didn't know it was on any other systems.  then Heck yeah i can get this game I have both a PC and a 360.  Thanks for letting me know that.  This game has just moved to the top of my wish list.

Too bad I don't have a system that will run the game,or any cash:(

On the up side I just got Dragon Quest IX for seven bucks brand new and sealed,I have never played a Dragon Quest game before but I am on an old school RPG kick lately so i am looking forward to it.

So again your problem is with CGI being used too much and you can get a good idea of how much CGI is in a film based on it's trailer so how is just refusing to pay to see any movie that has too much CGI in it's trailer not a good solution to this problem?

I am not trying to be a smartass I just don't understand what other options we have at this point and why this isn't worth a shot.

doubleofive said:

DominicCobb said:

I think many of us don't see those big CGI laden shlockfests. You won't find many here who went to see Trans4mers. You are again misinterpreting our issue with CGI. It's not that we hate it, or think that it should never be used, it's just that we are annoyed by its overabundance in mainstream films today.

I don't hate the Transformer movies because they used CGI to create robots that change into cars, I hate them because they insult my intelligence.

I think in a world without CGI, we'd still be complaining about practical effect shlockfests. We're blaming the hammer for the carpenter's shoddy work. And I mean the studios/directors are the carpenters, not the VFX artists who work their butts off to try to make whatever it is look good.

 Thank you!  Yes this is my point exactly.  Every form of effects can produce bad movies with fake looking effects.  I don't have anything against either models or CGI,it's the stories they are used to tell that matter to me.  Thank you.

Maybe but they said Sutherland was heavily involved in writing the ending and he has never seemed fond of the character and actors love it when their characters get killed off so i would think he would be pushing for Jack to die.

Still as you said he could be brought back.

I really wouldn't mind 24 being a summer mini series event from this point on. That would give us new 24 while at the same time giving the people involved time to work on other projects.  I guess we will see what happens.