Variations of that name kick around - 'The Motionless Picture' is another one.

Cardassians are both an excellent design and a wonderfully developed species, we won't be speaking ill of them in here.

The appearance of the Klingons in that film strongly informed their appearance in III, though. The Klingon language was developed for III, but it used the handful of Klingon phrases spoken in the first film as a guide, and they clearly used the bumpy heads of that movie as a starting point (likewise, their vaguely…

Tellarites definitely come closest.

Ehh, I tend to define bumpy headed aliens as ones with actual forehead bumps, which became a signature feature of many Michael Westmore designed aliens (like the Cardassians, but also many aliens of the week.)

Although there it was a straight line up the head:
http://movies.trekcore.com/…

I guess to be fair bumpy foreheads were never used in the original series, though of course we've seen them pretty much constantly since the first movie (all the way to Krall's knobbly head in last year's movie.)

Yeah, besides the Muppets, D'Argo is the only Farscape alien who would have seemed out of place in Star Trek, design-wise - they even had a species fairly similar to Zhaan, the Bolians (who appeared intermittently as various minor characters in the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager.)

The reason Klingons gained forehead bumps was covered in a two-part episode during Enterprise's fourth season. The short version involves the Klingons using DNA from humans like Khan to try and create their own super-soldiers, but it ultimately just results in a group of Klingons who don't have forehead bumps.

Pre-TNG. It's set ten years prior to TOS, so, around the same time as the original pilot, when Christopher Pike was Captain of the Enterprise.

Farscape had about half the budget of a contemporary Star Trek show (and benefited from that brief period tax whatevers made it good to shoot in Australia) but more importantly, they had the Jim Henson company.

That happened for me long before he became President. Just a generalized low level anxiety that this is it.

I think part of the problem is what people impute to the material more than the material itself. The idea that John Oliver 'destroyed' Trump is rightly and justly excoriated, but, of course, Oliver never said he did anything of the sort - for years, in YouTube videos and breathless media headlines, a given interview…

One reason he's unlikely to do that is Oliver has very rarely interviewed guests on his show. There's probably only been two or three times Oliver sat across from someone else on camera as they hashed things out.

Alrighty, you've been approved. Sorry for delay, multitasking.

Basically you register and then I approve the account. You need at least ten posts to access the TMI board, so feel free to post whatever in any of the other threads prior to.

That production looks bonkers, too.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…

I don't know, Penderecki conducting Penderecki seems like a neat win.

Yes there is. It's on the TMI Board, so you'd have to register to post there, but we'd love to have you there.

*Abed stares awkwardly at the camera for a full minute, then leans in very close*