wb@mtx5a.UUCP (Werner Baumgartner) (02/20/86)
Thank You, to the many people who answered my question about a sequel to Shore Leave, both by mail and through the net. I now know, that what I saw was one of the animated episodes. It's a shame the series did not build upon the idea of sequels, it would have made some interesting journeys possible. Thanks Again Werner Baumgartner
tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (02/24/86)
Werner calls it a shame that the series did not build upon the
idea of sequels. But to my mind, the downfall of the animated
series was that it did far too many sequels and retreads, so
I'm glad we got something new and exciting each week in the live
action shows.
Robert J. Sawyer
in Toronto
c/o
--
Tom Nadas
UUCP: {decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsri!tom
CSNET: tom@torontowheel@utastro.UUCP (Craig Wheeler) (02/25/86)
In article <1201@mtx5a.UUCP>, wb@mtx5a.UUCP (Werner Baumgartner) writes: > > Thank You, to the many people who answered my question > It's a shame the series did not build upon the idea of > sequels, it would have made some interesting journeys possible. > > Werner Baumgartner Ah, yes, but the series is built upon sequels these days... note Star Trek II's being a sequel to , and ST III a sequel to that, and ST IV... etc etc etc Boy, this whole post deserves one big o \ --- | o / ------------------------------------------------------------------ wheel@blahblah!blahblah.UTEXAS.EDU
wheel@utastro.UUCP (Craig Wheeler) (02/25/86)
In my last post, I mentioned that "ST II's being a sequel to " and then didnt finish. What I *meant* to type was, "a sequel to 'Space Seed'", the episode starring Kahn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We apologize for in inconvenience." "And now....number 3.... the larch... the... LARCH."
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (03/07/86)
> > Werner calls it a shame that the series did not build upon the > idea of sequels. Ah, but it did once: MUD'S WOMEN ---- I, MUDD