Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Mind's Eye"
Timothy W. Lynch
week's TNG episode, "The Mind's Eye". You know the rest. :-)
...and the crowd is going WILD...
This is a keeper, folks. Stick in one of those _high_ quality tapes in the
VCR, 'cos you don't want to let this one fade away.
Given that, of course, you should know what's coming next. Yep--one of my
high-power, or at least lengthy, synopses. What the hell, I haven't had one
since "First Contact", and that was three months ago. :-) Here goes:
prepare yourselves.
Geordi's en route to Risa for an artificial intelligence conference and some
general R&R. He tries to get comfortable on the shuttle, selecting some
appropriate music and playing games with the computer. Suddenly, this idyllic
setting is spoiled, when a Romulan Warbird decloaks right off the shuttle's
bow. Geordi puts up shields and tries to call for help--but his
communications are jammed, and his shields quickly fail. A Romulan
transporter beam yanks him off the shuttle...
Several days later. (Geordi's supposed to be gone for quite some time, so
there's no concern about where he is.) The Enterprise is heading for the
Kriosian system with Klingon Special Emissary Kell. Krios, an outlying
Klingon world, is fighting for independence, and there are "enough problems on
the home planet" that the Klingons don't want to divert resources to such a
trivial rebellion. Why is the Enterprise wanted? Well, the Governor of Krios
is claiming that the Federation is arming the rebels, and Kell is heading to
look at the proof. It was Kell's idea to bring along the Enterprise,
primarily because of the help Picard has lent to the Klingons in the past.
Picard assigns Worf to keep Kell briefed, despite Kell's objections that
Worf's discommendation make the situation "awkward."
Meanwhile, Geordi is being broken by the Romulans. Sub-Commander Taibak
[note: I'm guessing at his rank, but since his superior is a Commander, it
makes sense], with a shadowy partner, welcomes the captive and bound Geordi.
After a double for Geordi (not an exact duplicate, but one looking fairly
similar) heads off to Risa with instructions not to enjoy himself TOO much,
Taibak removes Geordi's VISOR and hooks a machine directly to Geordi's visual
cortex. The result of this is that Taibak can beam images directly to
Geordi's brain, with all the attendant effects on Geordi's body and psyche.
First he is shown suffering, then relief, then suffering again: "When our
work is done, LaForge will act normally, totally unaware of his
conditioning--a perfect tool for our purpose," says Taibak--and there will be
no physical evidence of their work at all. Geordi howls in agony as Taibak
alters the settings once more...
Kell and Worf examine the details of the rebellion. Two neutral freighters
have been attacked (1 Ferengi, 1 Cardassian), and the pattern would suggest
the rebels are hiding in a nearby asteroid belt, which shields them from
sensors. After Worf bristles at a suggestion that the Federation may be
helping them, Kell apologizes. He then thanks Worf on behalf of "some members
of the High Council", for killing Duras. He dismisses the fact that Worf did
so for personal reasons, not political ones: "What matters is that you acted
on that day--as a true Klingon."
Geordi then passes his first test, and kills a fake Chief O'Brien in a Romulan
mock-up of 10-Forward. Although he eventually does so, he hesitates enough
that Taibak orders another session.
Days later. The Enterprise is at Krios, and Geordi has just returned,
ostensibly from Risa. He banters with Data a bit (chuckling when Data, true
to form, completely misses a joke), and reports back to Picard on the bridge,
where Picard tells him they'll need his help shortly in analyzing whatever
evidence Governor Vagh comes up with. Picard and Kell leave to beam down, and
Data detects a brief "blip" of E-band radiation, which is rare enough that
Riker orders him to check it out before Riker too leaves for beam-down.
Governor Vagh is NOT a happy Klingon. He tells Picard, Riker and Kell that
Federation medical supplies have been found in rebel strongholds. Riker
points out that the Federation has never restricted access to their medical
supplies--and Vagh responds by asking about their weapons and tossing a phaser
rifle to Picard. It appears to be legitimate Federation issue, and after
Vagh agrees to let them take it up to the ship to examine it ("I have hundreds
more," he says), he angrily points out that the Federation has much to gain by
Kriosian independence, for Krios is the only colony close to the
Federation/Klingon border, and would thus be a valuable buffer zone in case of
attack. After he accuses Picard of "speaking the lies of a tar-kekh!" and
Picard responds in kind, Picard, Riker, and Kell beam up.
Geordi, meanwhile, gets back to Engineering. Everything's running smoothly,
so he leaves to "take care of something." That something, as it turns out, is
to go to 10-Forward, where he walks up to O'Brien and spills a drink on him.
He apologizes, and O'Brien dismisses it with a smile and goes off to change.
Later, Geordi and Data test the phaser rifle. Everything looks legitimate on
the first test, but the energy output of the crystal is TOO efficient. They
check the waveform pattern, and conclude that the rifle was charged via forced
pulse, which is NOT Federation standard. There are 327 systems known that use
that method, but Geordi knocks that down with a little common sense. "Who has
the most to gain from a conflict between the Federation and the Klingon
Empire?"
Clunk. Geordi tosses the rifle back onto the table down in Vagh's chambers.
"The Romulans." His argument is persuasive, but Vagh is still skeptical, and
says that he's going to have his own people check it out. The Enterprise
people and Kell beam back up. Data calls Riker over, having detected a second
E-band "blip", but with a different intensity, thus ruling out a stationary
source. Worried that it may be some form of Romulan communication, Riker has
Data retune the scatters to pinpoint a direction next time it occurs.
In cargo bay 4, Geordi reprograms some chips, diverts power to the
transporters from a secondary system, diverts transporter control to planetary
sensors, and beams off a cache of weapons. Once he's ascertained that the
computer is erasing all memory of having done this, he leaves--and arrives on
the bridge just in time to hear a VERY angry Vagh accuse Picard of smuggling
arms to the rebels. Vagh, understandably, will not listen to Picard's claims
of innocence, and orders them not to leave orbit, sending up an attack cruiser
and 2 Birds of Prey to punctuate his point.
Data quickly ascertains that there was an unauthorized transport, but nobody
can track it down as of yet. After Kell says he's managed to talk Vagh into
checking with the High Council (gaining only a few hours at best), Geordi and
Data search through the power systems. They eventually find that the power
was diverted from a replicator waveguide, and trace it to the cargo bay.
O'Brien checks out the cargo transporter and finds no evidence of any
tampering, thus suggesting that the evidence was erased. Worf asks who might
be capable of doing this, and Geordi lists only 4 names: himself, Lt. Kosta,
Data, and O'Brien. Everybody but Geordi has an alibi, though, and Geordi
gives his word that he was in his quarters alone. They begin a detailed scan
on every chip to try to hunt down a trail.
Geordi and Data brief Picard and Kell a short time later: the chips were
programmed to erase all evidence of operator commands shortly after transport.
They're working on the tiny residuals left by the chips to track it down. As
Data is called away by Riker (a third E-band blip, which Kell asks about with
great curiosity), Picard asks Kell to tell Vagh that they're doing all they
can--and that if necessary, he _will_ defend his ship. Kell agrees, and
suggests inviting Vagh up to observe the investigation firsthand. Picard
agrees to that, and bids the ambassador farewell.
Kell is eating in his quarters, when the door sounds. "Come in, Mr. LaForge."
Geordi does. "The investigation is moving faster than we expected; you're in
danger of being exposed. I will transport to the surface and when I return,
I'll have Governor Vagh with me. Your captain and I will bring him to the
cargo bay--I want you to kill him there, in front of witnesses. Use a hand
phaser. When he is dead, you will claim that you acted on behals of Starfleet
in support of Kriosian independence." "I understand," says Geordi, and leaves
Kell to enjoy his meal.
That evening, Geordi wakes from a nightmare and calls O'Brien--but then
doesn't understand why he did so and apologizes. He goes to visit Beverly for
insomnia problems, but she finds nothing physically wrong (aside from a very
slight, not-at-all serious abnormality in the visual cortex) and gives him a
somnetic inducer to help in the short term. Kell and Vagh, with two guards,
beam up and are escorted to the cargo bay.
Data, meanwhile, has pinpointed the transmissions. The first and third
occurrences came from within the Enterprise itself, while the second was
planetside. He speculates that it's being used by Romulan agents somehow, but
needs more to go on. Is there any match with any Romulan form of
communication? Negative. Any match with ANY known communication? Negative.
Any match with ANYTHING? Yes--a human brainwave pattern. "What sort of
receiver would be capable of processing these signals?" "A system designed to
modify the electromagnetic spectrum and carry those messages directly to the
human brain," replies the computer.
In a reflection of Geordi's computer console in his quarters, we see Geordi
pick up a phaser and leave his quarters.
Data checks Geordi's shuttle--everything seems to be shipshape. Geordi is in
the turbolift.
In the cargo bay, O'Brien certifies that that is the _only_ transporter that
has been tampered with. Geordi leaves the lift and walks down the corridor to
the bay.
Data examines the shuttle more carefully, and finds evidence of microscopic
stresses which suggest a tractor beam. Geordi enters the bay, visually
follows Vagh, and is interrupted by O'Brien, who asks him for some help.
Data finds that the computer chips in the shuttle have some subtle flaws.
"Probable cause?" "Replication." Further, replication with patterns
identical to those used by Romulan replicators. O'Brien leaves Geordi, who
begins looking over Vagh again.
Data hails Geordi, but gets no response. After determining that Geordi is in
the cargo bay, he hails Worf. "Data to Lt. Worf: Priority One." "Go ahead."
"Take Commander LaForge into custody immediately." "Sir?" "That is an
order."
Worf attempts to do so, but is stopped by Vagh's guards. He calls out a
warning, and Picard deflects Geordi's shot just in time. Vagh is shaken, but
convinced the Federation is treacherous, until Data arrives to explain that
Geordi was acting under Romulan conditioning: the E-band signals were being
sent directly to Geordi's brain. When Kell demands to know who was sending
these signals to Geordi, Data replies that the signals must be very
close-range. Only two people were with Geordi all three times the signals
were detected: Picard, and Ambassador Kell. Kell refuses to be searched for
a transmitter by anyone on board. Vagh agrees--"We will take the ambassador
with us...and search him ourselves." Kell requests asylum, which Picard will
be happy to grant--"WHEN you have been absolved of this crime." Kell, Vagh,
and the two guards depart.
We close with Geordi and Troi. Geordi is visibly shaken by his experience, in
part because he vividly remembers his experiences ON RISA. Troi manages to
break through the bare surface level of the conditioning, but tells Geordi
this will take a long time. But they will reconstruct his memory eventually,
together.
Wheeeeeeeeeeewwwww. Just writing the SYNOPSIS wore me out. :-) You can
probably guess that I liked this one based on that, huh? Well, let me give
some details here.
Wow. I don't even really know where to begin. Wait a sec--here's something.
TNG, folks, has now officially crossed the line. What line is that? The line
into serialization. No, I don't mean the continued references to Worf's
discommendation, although that's a great part of it. I am referring to the
DELIBERATE leaving of loose ends which we know will be tied shortly. Worf's
discommendation is one of these--we know it's going to be resolved a scant
three weeks from now, in "Redemption". But there are others.
For one thing, we don't know why Kell did what he did. I have very strong
suspicions that we'll find this out in three weeks as well, along with a few
more answers about the extent of Klingon-Romulan dealings. More on that in a
little while.
And then, there's the one, true sign of a serialized show: the introduction
of a mystery character whose identity will shortly be revealed. I am
referring, of course, to Taibak's mysterious superior, whom we heard speak,
but only saw cloaked in darkness. Who is that woman?
Well, I don't know who the character is. However, the voice she spoke with is
completely unmistakable. *That*, friends, is Denise Crosby. No ifs, ands, or
buts. Accept no substitutes. We've been wondering how she's going to come
back to TNG ever since we heard she was returning in "Redemption". Well, now
we know at least the beginning of the picture, and damn, I'm happy to see it.
(In part, this means we can finally, FINALLY, lay to rest all of this
"daughter of the Ent-C Tasha" nonsense.) It is the fact that we MUST see more
of this person in "Redemption" if anything we've heard through the grapevine
is correct that leads me to my claim of serialization.
Well, I've been campaigning for serialization of TNG for a good long time, so
it's a given that any show which manages to unequivocally do so will get
praise from me for that alone. But "The Mind's Eye" had more than just that.
Oh, boy, did it ever.
I've had a few run-ins with "edge-of-your-seat" TNG before, where the
commercial breaks seem to run for two hours rather than two minutes. Some of
them were excitement-based, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise". Some of them
were mystery-based, such as "The Defector", "Clues", and "Conspiracy". "The
Mind's Eye" falls firmly into the latter category, although even after much of
the mystery had been revealed I still wanted to see the end. I was wracking
my brains for most of the show trying to guess exactly who Geordi was being
aimed at. I'm a little smug right now, 'cos I guessed right. (Though, to be
fair, there were really only two clear choices: Kell or Vagh, and since Kell
was a more obvious one, I chose Vagh. Nice to see that I can think like the
writers sometimes.) But man, was it heaven getting there.
The show had one or two minor problems. I thought the scene of Geordi's
conditioning was a little too "talky", for instance (possibly my only real
objection to the show, but we'll see). Much of Taibak's speechmaking can be
chalked up to the fact that he wanted Geordi to hear exactly what was to be
done with him, I suspect, but not all of it. A little slow...and Geordi's
scream at the end of the scene didn't quite work. But that's a minor flaw in
an otherwise terrific show.
Apart from that one scene, LeVar Burton did a terrific job. In fact, I can't
think of anyone who did a lousy job for this particular show. Sirtis, for
example, had only two real scenes, and surprisingly managed to excel in both
of them. Her banter with Geordi early on rang more true to me than most of
the "people-talk" scenes (certainly far more so than her girl-talk with Bev in
the salon scene in "The Host"), and her therapy session with Geordi at the end
did everything but have me on my feet screaming "YES! That's what you keep a
counselor like Troi around FOR! Why didn't you show us something like that in
the FIRST place?!?!?!?" Bravo.
Special commendations have to go to Larry Dobkin as Ambassador Kell, one of
the most three-dimensional guest-stars I've seen in a long time. Among other
things, it's often easy to tell who the bad guy is; but I didn't guess that
Kell was a Rihan agent until just seconds before Geordi rang at his door. As
soon as I saw him eating, I said "that man is looking a little too smug...what
the hell is he up to?"; but until that scene, I hadn't a clue that he was up
to no good. Rather the reverse: I was starting to like the guy. Very, VERY
good work.
The plot was, in my opinion, virtually airtight. (It was certainly riveting,
but it can be riveting and still filled with holes.) I can think of one and
only one thing which people might object to (which probably means there'll be
around 15 :-) ), which is this: why didn't Data order Worf to get Geordi out
of the way as soon as he realized the signals could only be beamed to a VISOR,
rather than going to the shuttle as he did? I'm not entirely sure I have an
answer to that, but it would hardly have changed the situation all THAT much,
so it's a minor problem. (Besides, it made wonderful dramatic sense to have
things unfold the way they did, but I'll get to that in a second.)
Now for the directing: whew. David Livingston is a rookie TNG director,
although he's been a producer for a while. But if this isn't just a fluke for
him, then keep him directing until he drops. Many of the scenes were put
together so very well...took my breath away. Some of it was actor-dependent,
of course; the cuts back and forth at the end wouldn't have worked half as
well as they did if Spiner hadn't given the good performance he did during
those scenes ("That is an order." Brr...), but those shots strike me as VERY
difficult to pull off correctly. (I tried to get across in my synop just how
"blam-blam-blam" they were in their pacing, but I doubt I succeeded; it's just
not something you can do with letters on a page.) The shot of Geordi from
inside the cargo bay chip compartment (for want of a better phrase :-) ) was
good as well, and the shots of Geordi during his journey to the lift were
downright eerie. (If they'd just used this guy for "Identity Crisis", I'd
probably have loved it to ribbons.) Exceedingly nice.
Now, some short points (some whimsical, some not):
--Hmm. Ambassador Kell. Romulan Sub-Commander Taibak. Anybody else get the
feeling that Echevarria and Schafer just finished reading a heavy dose of
David Eddings? :-)
--Now, a more serious point. Kell thanks Worf on behalf of "some members" of
the High Council for killing Duras. That could be completely legitimate, and
that could also just have been small talk to put Worf off his guard. But
suppose it's more subtle than that. Suppose that Kell and his friends on the
Council are ALL Romulan agents. Why might they have been happy to see Duras
dead? Could it be that Duras was not only not entirely guilty of the crimes
he was accused of in "Reunion", but that he was completely INNOCENT? (I'm not
going so far as to say he's innocent of K'Ehleyr's murder, because if nothing
else that would offend my own personal sense of satisfaction when he was
killed.) Could it be that Duras's father's disgrace had made Duras all the
more anti-Romulan, and that Duras would have been a diligent seeker-out of the
traitors on the Council? Could it be that Gowron is one of Kell's associates,
and that Worf was indirectly responsible for betraying the Empire as a result
of his own personal prejudices and vengeance? I don't know, but it sounds to
me like there's the makings of a really meaty story in there. We can but
watch, and wait.
--Dennis McCarthy turned in some nice music this go-round. I particularly
liked the low, dark theme that played as the final sequence of
Data-Geordi-Data-Geordi-O'Brien-Geordi-etc. scenes began.
--Okay. I wasn't the only one screaming "stock footage!" when they had the
attack cruiser and the two Birds o'Prey on-screen, was I? :-) But they made up
for it with the nice shot of the shuttle trapped under the Warbird, and with
both the Romulan and Klingon transporters. (Particularly the Klingon
ones--they seem a lot faster, more brusque, than the Fed transporters. Makes
sense to me.)
--It would only take a few hours to talk to the Council via subspace from
Krios? Wow...either Klinzhai is way out of the physical center of the Empire
[hardly unheard-of...Terminus ran the Federation from one edge of the galaxy
in Asimov's Foundation series], or the Empire is a LOT smaller than the
Federation. Mighty intriguing either way...
--And in the "speak of the devil" department...just after a rerun of "The
Wounded", in comes a reference to the Cardassians. You know, if real problems
do develop with the Romulans and Klingons, this would be a really lousy time
for the Cardassians to open up another front...
I think I'll stop now. It's late, and besides, this is coming up on record
length, if it hasn't already reached it. I'll just say: see this. Now. TNG
has now firmly put itself on the serialized path, and I for one am mighty
pleased.
Now, for the numbers:
Plot: 9. A smidgeon off for the "why didn't Data act earlier" question, but
that's all.
Plot Handling: 9.5. An even smidgier smidgeon off for the talkiness of the
conditioning sequence.
Characterization: 9.5, for the same reason.
TOTAL: after rounding up half a point for good effects and music, we have a
10...is that the first 10 since "The Nth Degree"? Might be. Nice work.
NEXT WEEK:
Data's in wuvvv...I'll wait and see. (Like I have a choice in the
matter...:-) )
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Motives? Who cares of motives? Humans, perhaps."
--Ambassador Kell
--
Copyright 1991, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Stephen Strazdus
]WARNING: The following post contains spoiler information regarding this
]buts. Accept no substitutes. We've been wondering how she's going to come
]back to TNG ever since we heard she was returning in "Redemption". Well, now
]we know at least the beginning of the picture, and damn, I'm happy to see it.
](In part, this means we can finally, FINALLY, lay to rest all of this
]"daughter of the Ent-C Tasha" nonsense.) It is the fact that we MUST see more
]of this person in "Redemption" if anything we've heard through the grapevine
]is correct that leads me to my claim of serialization.
Uh, not to burst your bubble, but what makes you think this Denise Crosby
isn't the Tasha Yar captured by the Romulans after the Enterprise-C went
back in time to save the Klingon outpost from the Romulans?
--
Steve Strazdus sstr...@hopi.intel.com
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1991May30.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>]WARNING: The following post contains spoiler information regarding this
>]week's TNG episode, "The Mind's Eye". You know the rest. :-)
[on Denise Crosby's return to TNG as this mysterious Romulan female]
>](In part, this means we can finally, FINALLY, lay to rest all of this
>]"daughter of the Ent-C Tasha" nonsense.)
>Uh, not to burst your bubble, but what makes you think this Denise Crosby
>isn't the Tasha Yar captured by the Romulans after the Enterprise-C went
>back in time to save the Klingon outpost from the Romulans?
Let's see now. You would have me believe that not ONLY was Tasha (who of
all people would be likely to blow up the ship or stick a phaser in her ribs
before letting herself be captured) captured by the Romulans despite very
strong evidence that the -C was completely destroyed, but that she ALSO
managed to impress the Romulans enough to make Commander level and clearly
be running the show against versions of her former crewmates.
My suspension of disbelief meter would freeze solid, beg me for mercy, and
finally commit suicide were the TNG staff to seriously ask me to swallow
something THAT farfetched. :-)
I'll admit it's within the realms of possibility they'll try it, but if they
do, I can assure you that "Redemption" will suffer for it. Badly. (Like,
three points at MINIMUM, more if it's handled badly.) I want serialization:
I do NOT want explanations worthy of "General Hospital".
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Between the pen and the paperwork, I know there's passion in the language.
Between the muscle and the brainwork, there must be feeling in the pipeline..."
--Suzanne Vega, "Big Space"
Michael Rawdon
>sstr...@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>>In article <1991May30.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>]WARNING: The following post contains spoiler information regarding this
>>]week's TNG episode, "The Mind's Eye". You know the rest. :-)
>[on Denise Crosby's return to TNG as this mysterious Romulan female]
>>](In part, this means we can finally, FINALLY, lay to rest all of this
>>]"daughter of the Ent-C Tasha" nonsense.)
>>Uh, not to burst your bubble, but what makes you think this Denise Crosby
>>isn't the Tasha Yar captured by the Romulans after the Enterprise-C went
>>back in time to save the Klingon outpost from the Romulans?
>Let's see now. You would have me believe that not ONLY was Tasha (who of
>all people would be likely to blow up the ship or stick a phaser in her ribs
>before letting herself be captured) captured by the Romulans despite very
>strong evidence that the -C was completely destroyed,
Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
Zero problems there.
> but that she ALSO
>managed to impress the Romulans enough to make Commander level and clearly
>be running the show against versions of her former crewmates.
This, on the other hand, is a very good point. So how about this: She's
Tasha's daughter - half-Romulan daughter, that is. (Maybe she was raped?)
--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM
"Communication is hard to establish
when things like a state of mind get in the way.
People don't eat, they just think what you feed them now;
The horse with the blinders eating the hay."
- Men Without Hats, "The Great Ones Remember"
Timothy W. Lynch
raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>]WARNING: The following post contains spoiler information regarding this
>>>]week's TNG episode, "The Mind's Eye". You know the rest. :-)
[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show shortly
is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>>Let's see now. You would have me believe that not ONLY was Tasha (who of
>>all people would be likely to blow up the ship or stick a phaser in her ribs
>>before letting herself be captured) captured by the Romulans despite very
>>strong evidence that the -C was completely destroyed,
>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>Zero problems there.
Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as I'm
concerned, we've been given ample internal AND external evidence that the -C
was destroyed. Fully. With all hands.
(The internal evidence would be Data's assessment of the -C's chances as
"none"; not very small, not virtually impossible--ZERO. This is the ultra-
precise android talking to you. ZERO. Listen to him. The external evidence
would be everyone in TNG who's ever been asked about the question responding
with a certain revulsion, and saying "Tasha is DEAD! We killed her TWICE!
She's not coming back!")
I couldn't swallow it.
>> but that she ALSO
>>managed to impress the Romulans enough to make Commander level and clearly
>>be running the show against versions of her former crewmates.
>This, on the other hand, is a very good point. So how about this: She's
>Tasha's daughter - half-Romulan daughter, that is. (Maybe she was raped?)
Yech. No, I couldn't believe that either.
Simply put, I firmly hope there is *no connection whatsoever* between Ms.
Crosby's new character and Tasha Yar. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Absolutely
nil. Everything was set up so that the -C's Tasha is *dead and gone*, and
she should stay that way.
To do otherwise would, at least for me, both stretch credibility several orders
of magnitude beyond my limits, and cheapen the sacrifices made in "Yesterday's
Enterprise". I'll repeat myself: if we see that this is a converted Tasha,
or a descendant of a captured Tasha, or anything that involves the Tasha from
the -C, "Redemption" will suffer for it in my review. Badly.
I may sound dogmatic, but I strongly feel that you can serialize without
resorting to stupid, soap-opera-type revivals of dead characters. They've
just started serializing at full speed--if they resort to that type of revival,
my faith in and defense of the show will be lessened to a considerable extent.
Tim Lynch
Apprentice Wizard Wannabe
>And here I thought you were on vacation...
>
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>>>]WARNING: The following post contains spoiler information regarding this
>>>>]week's TNG episode, "The Mind's Eye". You know the rest. :-)
>
>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show shortly
>is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>
O.K. How about the Rom's *cloned* some of Tasha's dead cells :)
They have been going out of there way to "experiment" with humans again.
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|\
|Scott Carpenter | \
|VAX System Manager | \
|SAIC Falls Church, VA |______\
|Carp...@Fwva.Saic.Com |
|7550...@Compuserve.Com |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Michael Rawdon
>And here I thought you were on vacation...
I managed to sneak in a quick look at my mail and news. :-)
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show shortly
>is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>>>Let's see now. You would have me believe that not ONLY was Tasha (who of
>>>all people would be likely to blow up the ship or stick a phaser in her ribs
>>>before letting herself be captured) captured by the Romulans despite very
>>>strong evidence that the -C was completely destroyed,
>>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>>Zero problems there.
>Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as I'm
>concerned, we've been given ample internal AND external evidence that the -C
>was destroyed. Fully. With all hands.
I would point one important thing out to you: We never saw a body.
>(The internal evidence would be Data's assessment of the -C's chances as
>"none"; not very small, not virtually impossible--ZERO. This is the ultra-
>precise android talking to you. ZERO. Listen to him.
I would point one important thing out here: Data did not know - he could
not possibly have known - every possible variable in the equation. The time
hole could have dumped them out a few minutes later and happened to have
put them in a better position to attack. Or, the Romulans could have taken
prisoners. (Statements like "The Romulans don't take prisoners" wouldn't
wash with me; I could not believe that the Romulans never, ever take
prisoners, under any circumstances, for all time, considering every individual
in the species. Especially after seeing them capture Geordi in "The Mind's
Eye").
We simply do not know what happened. We didn't see it. We didn't hear
about it elsewhere in the series. We don't know.
> The external evidence
>would be everyone in TNG who's ever been asked about the question responding
>with a certain revulsion, and saying "Tasha is DEAD! We killed her TWICE!
>She's not coming back!")
I'd trust them not to go back on such statements about as far as I could
throw Worf.
>I couldn't swallow it.
Suit yourself.
>>> but that she ALSO
>>>managed to impress the Romulans enough to make Commander level and clearly
>>>be running the show against versions of her former crewmates.
>>This, on the other hand, is a very good point. So how about this: She's
>>Tasha's daughter - half-Romulan daughter, that is. (Maybe she was raped?)
>Yech. No, I couldn't believe that either.
>Simply put, I firmly hope there is *no connection whatsoever* between Ms.
>Crosby's new character and Tasha Yar. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Absolutely
>nil. Everything was set up so that the -C's Tasha is *dead and gone*, and
>she should stay that way.
Hmm... I firmly hope that either:
1) There is a connection between the two, and a close one at that, or:
2) The character is not a new regular or recurring character, or:
3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
I just wouldn't be able to believe anything else. If she's supposed to be
a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>To do otherwise would, at least for me, both stretch credibility several orders
>of magnitude beyond my limits, and cheapen the sacrifices made in "Yesterday's
>Enterprise". I'll repeat myself: if we see that this is a converted Tasha,
>or a descendant of a captured Tasha, or anything that involves the Tasha from
>the -C, "Redemption" will suffer for it in my review. Badly.
It looks like we're almost de facto going to disagree on the episode, then. :-)
>I may sound dogmatic, but I strongly feel that you can serialize without
>resorting to stupid, soap-opera-type revivals of dead characters.
Like the sort of thing they did with Tasha Yar in "Yesterday's Enterprise", for
instance? It's exactly the same thing, to me.
> They've
>just started serializing at full speed--if they resort to that type of revival,
>my faith in and defense of the show will be lessened to a considerable extent.
Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then? She's paid her dues.
Her character has lived out its life and then some. If they're going to bring
in a different character, they ought to bring in a different actress to play
her.
--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM
Then the Fool said "Oh you Wise men, you really make me laugh,
With your talk of vast persuasion and searching through the past,
There is only greed and evil in the men who fight today,
The Song of the Crusader has long since gone away."
- Chris De Burgh, "Crusader"
Timothy W. Lynch
down to individual taste by this point. Everyone has something that really,
really gets under their nails. With Paul Schinder, it's scientific inaccura-
cies. With me, it's what are in my view _incredibly_ contrived ways to justify
something that doesn't need justification. Your mileage may vary.
But there might be a little bit of solid stuff in here somewhere...
raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <1991Jun3.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[etc.]
>I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
>between two re(oc)curring characters.
How's this: they look alike. I know, I know, it's a little farfetched, but
it does make a certain sense. :-) That may seem flip, but I honestly see no
reason to say ANYTHING else. I mean, I know of at least three other people
with the name Tim Lynch, none of which have any connection to me I know of
(although, strangely enough, one of them's a Cornellian and another works for
the Planetary Society :-) ); and there's nothing wrong with THAT... I had an
English teacher whose last name was Lynch and who looked an awful lot like my
father, but checked and there was no relation. These sort of things happen,
Michael; the universe isn't always going to give you tidy, neat, contrived-as-
hell explanations for things.
>>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
>>And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
>>been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
>>rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than
>>let herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance
>>technological information) be taken alive.
>If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
>Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're ready
>to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
Both of these count as the Rihan being lucky as hell. Considering that a
wounded Khan nearly managed to nail the Enterprise with a ship 300 years ahead
of his time, I have no problem expecting her to be able to destroy a ship
that's by now 20 years past her even when wounded.
>>In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
>>prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
>>technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
>>without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
>>again?
>Another point where lack of knowledge could easily be used to cover everything
>up.
Not this time. See below.
>Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
>the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
>fifty years.
Actually, more like 30; it was fifty by TNG time, and the Norendra 3 incident
was 20 years earlier.
>(Source: "The Neutral Zone") Who knows WHAT their power level
>was like at the time? (They didn't seem to be especially hot stuff in TOS,
>since they had to start relying on Klingon technology.)
Rather the reverse, as I recall; certainly the cloaking device was their idea
and not the Klingons'...
>There could be a zillion other explanations, too. The Romulans could have been
>waylaid by the civil war (or, as many have theorized, they've been fighting
>the Borg for a while).
For TWENTY YEARS? C'mon; whatever happened with the Borg, it would have
happened fast. And as for a civil war, simple; whichever side had Tasha's
advanced knowledge would in my opinion win handily. I'm not a warfare
expert; anybody who is want to pitch in and explain how the outcome of WW2
would have changed had one side had 1960s-level weaponry?
I stand by my assertion: if Tasha had been taken prisoner, the Romulans would
have had SUCH a vast superiority in technology that they'd have beaten the
Federation in a few years at most and we'd be watching "Star Trek: The Romulan
Generation".
>>>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>>I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
>>Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
>?Three? Sarek, the Romulan Commander, and whom?
Klingon Commander, STTMP.
>Key point in my mind: Only one of those characters (Sarek) was a recurring
>one. Ditto Diana Muldaur's appearances.
That is, in part, because TOS had all the serial continuity of a lemming. (I
mean, let's face it, however else we feel about the two shows, TNG clearly
wins in the establishing of continuing plotlines.) Even Sarek only recurred
twenty years later.
>>>If she's supposed to be
>>>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
>>>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>>Why?
>Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the
>two characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
>probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
Then you obsess too easily about nonessential things, in my opinion. There
have been more than a few films out there with people in multiple roles--did
you worry all that time about what connection they had?
The gist is this: an actress has decided to rejoin the show. Having already
used the Tasha character as much as they care to, and having already killed
her TWICE, the staff decide to go with something else. They pick a Romulan,
and make Denise Crosby a recurring villain. Why, pray tell, do you have
problems with that? Do you also spend a great deal of your time wondering
why TOS Klingons don't look like TNG Klingons? It's about as relevant an
issue, at least to me.
>If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
>or looked nearly totally different (e.g., the difference between Miranda
>Jones and Dr. Kate Pulaski, which had 20 years of aging and a hair color and
>style change behind it) then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want to know why they
>look basically identical.
Because they are played by the same actress. Coincidences of appearance, and
even of name (e.g. the English teacher example I mentioned a ways back in this
article) happen. Period.
>(Actually, here's an explanation I'd buy: The character DID look different,
>but had plastic surgery - or the 24th century equivalent - to look the same
>as Yar for some diabolical ( :-) plot.)
Bleh. Equally soapish, but perhaps slightly more palatable as long as they
got over that plot in about half a show and did something NEW.
>> and, as I said
>>last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
>To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
>because we don't see them.
That's because you're a cynical bastard. :-) Allowing any part of the Ent-C
to survive is in effect saying, I feel, "What? That big death sentence
they were all heading for, that noble sacrifice to change history? Naaah."
This should make it a little clearer for you--it would feel to me like bringing
back Edith Keeler. Does that inspire any more emotion in you?
>>>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then?
Simple--she wants in, she's competent, and there's room. 'nuff said.
>Let me put it this way then: She had her chance on TNG.
Still a rather harsh assessment in my view. Saying "give her a connection to
Tasha or don't let her act in this production" is a tad narrow-minded, wouldn't
you say? And that is, essentially, what you've been saying.
>>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
>Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this
>role, or else that there will be some connection between the two.
You'll have to pardon me if I COMPLETELY fail to see how that sentence has any
logical relation whatsoever to the previous two. Perhaps I'm just being
dense--care to enlighten me as to just what the bloody hell that has to do with
Tasha "having lived out her life and then some"? To me, that implies that we
should let the past lie, and leave Tasha and her fictitious descendants BE.
>>You appear to be saying "well,
>>Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
>>her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
>Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. If she DOES want to come
>back, then they should either use the same character, or have an explanation
>for the similarity between different and unrelated characters.
Zey are playt by ze same actress, Commandant. Zat is ze only explanation ze
female will giff. :-)
(Boy, I really do hope that "Redemption" settles this issue, because I really
don't WANT to have to get that annoyed at the show when it's being set up SO
damned nicely...)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
one unresolvable point. :-)
raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show
>>shortly is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>>>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>>>Zero problems there.
>>Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as I'm
>>concerned, we've been given ample internal AND external evidence that the -C
>>was destroyed. Fully. With all hands.
>I would point one important thing out to you: We never saw a body.
You've apparently been reading comic books even longer than I, then. I am not
claiming that it is impossible for them to do it--but I am claiming that it is
impossible for them to do it and not snap credibility in my eyes down to near-
record lows.
>>(The internal evidence would be Data's assessment of the -C's chances as
>>"none"; not very small, not virtually impossible--ZERO. This is the ultra-
>>precise android talking to you. ZERO. Listen to him.
>I would point one important thing out here: Data did not know - he could
>not possibly have known - every possible variable in the equation.
This is true, but combined with everything else it's still a powerful link in
the chain.
>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than let
herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance technological
information) be taken alive.
In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
again?
>> The external evidence
>>would be everyone in TNG who's ever been asked about the question responding
>>with a certain revulsion, and saying "Tasha is DEAD! We killed her TWICE!
>>She's not coming back!")
>I'd trust them not to go back on such statements about as far as I could
>throw Worf.
For now, I trust them. If they betray that trust, it will cost them, as I've
said.
>>Simply put, I firmly hope there is *no connection whatsoever* between Ms.
>>Crosby's new character and Tasha Yar. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Absolutely
>>nil. Everything was set up so that the -C's Tasha is *dead and gone*, and
>>she should stay that way.
>Hmm... I firmly hope that either:
>1) There is a connection between the two, and a close one at that, or:
Cough, wheeze, hack. Soap opera city.
>2) The character is not a new regular or recurring character, or:
I believe you're out of luck there, as I seem to recall she's going to be
a recurring one (though not a regular).
>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>I just wouldn't be able to believe anything else.
I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
>If she's supposed to be
>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
Why? Here's something that might satisfy us both: suppose it's just your
plain, ordinary Romulan commander, BUT her close similarity in appearance to
Tasha is noticed by the Enterprise crew and causes a few problems in dealing
with her. That would be fine with me; how about you?
>>I may sound dogmatic, but I strongly feel that you can serialize without
>>resorting to stupid, soap-opera-type revivals of dead characters.
>Like the sort of thing they did with Tasha Yar in "Yesterday's Enterprise",
>for instance? It's exactly the same thing, to me.
YE took place in an alternate universe, so having Tasha there made perfect
sense. That set up its own internal continuity and stuck to it. Bringing
her back AGAIN would violate my own sense of continuity--and, as I said
last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
>> They've
>>just started serializing at full speed--if they resort to that type of
>>revival, my faith in and defense of the show will be lessened to a
>>considerable extent.
>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then? She's paid her dues.
I don't recall "dues" being necessary to be paid.
>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
>If they're going to bring
>in a different character, they ought to bring in a different actress to play
>her.
And again, you've given no reason for this. You appear to be saying "well,
Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show
>>>shortly is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>>>>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>>>>Zero problems there.
>>>Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as I'm
>>>concerned, we've been given ample internal AND external evidence that the -C
>>>was destroyed. Fully. With all hands.
>>I would point one important thing out to you: We never saw a body.
>You've apparently been reading comic books even longer than I, then.
(Aside: Since 1975. :-)
> I am not
>claiming that it is impossible for them to do it--but I am claiming that it is
>impossible for them to do it and not snap credibility in my eyes down to near-
>record lows.
I dunno. A clever bit of tapdancing can usually make me ignore stuff like
that. I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
between two re(oc)curring characters.
>>>(The internal evidence would be Data's assessment of the -C's chances as
>>>"none"; not very small, not virtually impossible--ZERO. This is the ultra-
>>>precise android talking to you. ZERO. Listen to him.
>>I would point one important thing out here: Data did not know - he could
>>not possibly have known - every possible variable in the equation.
>This is true, but combined with everything else it's still a powerful link in
>the chain.
Not with me. It counts for nothing within the scope of the series as a whole.
>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
>And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
>been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
>rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than let
>herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance technological
>information) be taken alive.
If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're ready
to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
(Or maybe she and Castille both get taken prisoner and they force her
co-operation by threatening him. And you thought the idea of the new character
being merely related to her was soap-operaish -- I'm not sure even *I* could
buy that one! :-)
>In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
>prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
>technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
>without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
>again?
Another point where lack of knowledge could easily be used to cover everything
up. Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
fifty years. (Source: "The Neutral Zone") Who knows WHAT their power level
was like at the time? (They didn't seem to be especially hot stuff in TOS,
since they had to start relying on Klingon technology.)
There could be a zillion other explanations, too. The Romulans could have been
waylaid by the civil war (or, as many have theorized, they've been fighting
the Borg for a while). Any of those could have substantially reduced their
fighting capability.
Also, there don't seem to have been many big technological advances between
the times of TOS and TNG (~80 years). Maybe a 20 year jump on the enemy
isn't enough to be able to sweep over them with ease.
>>>Simply put, I firmly hope there is *no connection whatsoever* between Ms.
>>>Crosby's new character and Tasha Yar. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Absolutely
>>>nil. Everything was set up so that the -C's Tasha is *dead and gone*, and
>>>she should stay that way.
>>Hmm... I firmly hope that either:
>>1) There is a connection between the two, and a close one at that, or:
>Cough, wheeze, hack. Soap opera city.
Not to me.
>>2) The character is not a new regular or recurring character, or:
>I believe you're out of luck there, as I seem to recall she's going to be
>a recurring one (though not a regular).
Unfortunate - especially since I've not cared for Crosby on TNG to date. Not
even, really, in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
>>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>>I just wouldn't be able to believe anything else.
>I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
>Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
?Three? Sarek, the Romulan Commander, and whom?
Key point in my mind: Only one of those characters (Sarek) was a recurring
one. Ditto Diana Muldaur's appearances.
>>If she's supposed to be
>>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
>>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>Why?
Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the two
characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
> Here's something that might satisfy us both: suppose it's just your
>plain, ordinary Romulan commander, BUT her close similarity in appearance to
>Tasha is noticed by the Enterprise crew and causes a few problems in dealing
>with her. That would be fine with me; how about you?
Shades of "Legacy"! :-)
If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
or looked nearly totally different (e.g., the difference between Miranda
Jones and Dr. Kate Pulaski, which had 20 years of aging and a hair color and
style change behind it) then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want to know why they
look basically identical.
(Actually, here's an explanation I'd buy: The character DID look different,
but had plastic surgery - or the 24th century equivalent - to look the same
as Yar for some diabolical ( :-) plot.)
>>>I may sound dogmatic, but I strongly feel that you can serialize without
>>>resorting to stupid, soap-opera-type revivals of dead characters.
>>Like the sort of thing they did with Tasha Yar in "Yesterday's Enterprise",
>>for instance? It's exactly the same thing, to me.
>YE took place in an alternate universe, so having Tasha there made perfect
>sense. That set up its own internal continuity and stuck to it. Bringing
>her back AGAIN would violate my own sense of continuity--
But not mine.
> and, as I said
>last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
because we don't see them. It's that the characters choose to make those
sacrifices - even if they ultimately don't have to - that counts.
(In other words, to turn around Kell's words: Who cares for results? What
matters were their motives! At least to me as a viewer.)
>>> They've
>>>just started serializing at full speed--if they resort to that type of
>>>revival, my faith in and defense of the show will be lessened to a
>>>considerable extent.
>>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then? She's paid her dues.
>I don't recall "dues" being necessary to be paid.
Let me put it this way then: She had her chance on TNG.
>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this role,
or else that there will be some connection between the two.
>>If they're going to bring
>>in a different character, they ought to bring in a different actress to play
>>her.
>And again, you've given no reason for this. You appear to be saying "well,
>Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
>her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. If she DOES want to come
back, then they should either use the same character, or have an explanation
for the similarity between different and unrelated characters.
--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek than none at all."
- A friend, about the TNG episode "Legacy"
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>[etc.]
>>I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
>>between two re(oc)curring characters.
>How's this: they look alike. I know, I know, it's a little farfetched, but
>it does make a certain sense. :-) That may seem flip, but I honestly see no
>reason to say ANYTHING else. I mean, I know of at least three other people
>with the name Tim Lynch, none of which have any connection to me I know of
>(although, strangely enough, one of them's a Cornellian and another works for
>the Planetary Society :-) ); and there's nothing wrong with THAT... I had an
>English teacher whose last name was Lynch and who looked an awful lot like my
>father, but checked and there was no relation.
Umm... I'm not at all sure what point you're making here. Similarities of
name are very, very different (and much more common - by a factor of about
infinity, in my experience) than exact matches of appearance and voice.
> These sort of things happen,
>Michael; the universe isn't always going to give you tidy, neat, contrived-as-
>hell explanations for things.
Remember, though, this is dramatic television (sometimes :-), not "the
universe".
>>>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
>>>And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
>>>been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
>>>rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than
>>>let herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance
>>>technological information) be taken alive.
>>If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
>>Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're ready
>>to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
>Both of these count as the Rihan being lucky as hell. Considering that a
>wounded Khan nearly managed to nail the Enterprise with a ship 300 years ahead
>of his time, I have no problem expecting her to be able to destroy a ship
>that's by now 20 years past her even when wounded.
??? What on Earth are you talking about? What ship is "20 years past her"?
>>>In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
>>>prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
>>>technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
>>>without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
>>>again?
>>Another point where lack of knowledge could easily be used to cover everything
>>up.
>Not this time. See below.
>>Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
>>the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
>>fifty years.
>Actually, more like 30; it was fifty by TNG time, and the Norendra 3 incident
>was 20 years earlier.
As I recall, "The Neutral Zone" said that the last big encounter with the
Romulans had occurred 70 years earlier. The Norendra incident occurred 20
years earlier. 70 - 20 = 50, yes?
>>(Source: "The Neutral Zone") Who knows WHAT their power level
>>was like at the time? (They didn't seem to be especially hot stuff in TOS,
>>since they had to start relying on Klingon technology.)
>Rather the reverse, as I recall; certainly the cloaking device was their idea
>and not the Klingons'...
Yes, but their overall power level seemed to be substantially less then either
the Federation's or the Klingons'. They had ships that were virtually crippled
every time they fired their weapons, and which other than the one plasma beam
were not nearly a match for a Federation Starship.
>>There could be a zillion other explanations, too. The Romulans could have been
>>waylaid by the civil war (or, as many have theorized, they've been fighting
>>the Borg for a while).
>For TWENTY YEARS? C'mon; whatever happened with the Borg, it would have
>happened fast. And as for a civil war, simple; whichever side had Tasha's
>advanced knowledge would in my opinion win handily. I'm not a warfare
>expert; anybody who is want to pitch in and explain how the outcome of WW2
>would have changed had one side had 1960s-level weaponry?
Actually, if there had been a slowdown of technological progress as I asserted,
a better comparison might be explaining the outcome of the Battle of Hastings
(1066) had one side had 1086 technology. Not a large difference.
By the way, now that I think about it, what sorts of knowledge do you think
Yar would have had? Certainly not much useful (i.e., detailed) technological
knowledge, since she wasn't an engineer. Some historical knowledge,
certainly, but most of it from a history that wouldn't happen (indeed, if the
Romulans ended up taking her version of history as gospel, that could more
than explain why they didn't mop up the Federation: They would have been
reacting to events that didn't happen).
What exactly did she know? Like I said, there doesn't seem to have BEEN many
big technological jumps in the past 20 years (TNG time).
>I stand by my assertion: if Tasha had been taken prisoner, the Romulans would
>have had SUCH a vast superiority in technology that they'd have beaten the
>Federation in a few years at most and we'd be watching "Star Trek: The Romulan
>Generation".
I disagree.
>>>>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>>>I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
>>>Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
>>Key point in my mind: Only one of those characters (Sarek) was a recurring
>>one. Ditto Diana Muldaur's appearances.
>That is, in part, because TOS had all the serial continuity of a lemming. (I
>mean, let's face it, however else we feel about the two shows, TNG clearly
>wins in the establishing of continuing plotlines.) Even Sarek only recurred
>twenty years later.
Lack of continuity is not necessarily a minus. Especially considering that
I think TOS was overall far more successful as a dramatic television program
that TNG has been.
>>>>If she's supposed to be
>>>>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
>>>>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>>>Why?
>>Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the
>>two characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
>>probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
>Then you obsess too easily about nonessential things, in my opinion.
Which is (not surprisingly, I'm sure) basically how I feel about your
worrying about supposed contrived plot twists.
> There
>have been more than a few films out there with people in multiple roles--did
>you worry all that time about what connection they had?
You'd have to name some films for me. The only one that comes to mind off
the top of my head is Dr. Strangelove, which was 1) played for comedy (which
foregives much), and 2) not a great movie anyway, IMHO (but then, I don't
care for much of Kubrick's work that I've seen).
>The gist is this: an actress has decided to rejoin the show. Having already
>used the Tasha character as much as they care to, and having already killed
>her TWICE, the staff decide to go with something else. They pick a Romulan,
>and make Denise Crosby a recurring villain. Why, pray tell, do you have
>problems with that?
If she's a different character, why don't they use a different actress?
If they're going to use the same actress, there should be some connection
between the two characters, I think.
> Do you also spend a great deal of your time wondering
>why TOS Klingons don't look like TNG Klingons? It's about as relevant an
>issue, at least to me.
It passes through my head every so often. The differences between TOS and
TNG Klingons and Romulans IS one reason I don't care for TNG as much: They
don't seem to really understand the races and are building them up to be
something different from what they really are.
>>If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
>>or looked nearly totally different (e.g., the difference between Miranda
>>Jones and Dr. Kate Pulaski, which had 20 years of aging and a hair color and
>>style change behind it) then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want to know why they
>>look basically identical.
>Because they are played by the same actress.
I meant an explanation within the story.
> Coincidences of appearance, and
>even of name (e.g. the English teacher example I mentioned a ways back in this
>article) happen. Period.
I disagree.
>>(Actually, here's an explanation I'd buy: The character DID look different,
>>but had plastic surgery - or the 24th century equivalent - to look the same
>>as Yar for some diabolical ( :-) plot.)
>Bleh. Equally soapish, but perhaps slightly more palatable as long as they
>got over that plot in about half a show and did something NEW.
As long as there's an explanation...
>>> and, as I said
>>>last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
>>To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
>>because we don't see them.
>That's because you're a cynical bastard. :-) Allowing any part of the Ent-C
>to survive is in effect saying, I feel, "What? That big death sentence
>they were all heading for, that noble sacrifice to change history? Naaah."
Doesn't bother me.
>This should make it a little clearer for you--it would feel to me like bringing
>back Edith Keeler. Does that inspire any more emotion in you?
Not really.
>>>>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then?
>Simple--she wants in, she's competent, and there's room. 'nuff said.
I'd quibble with the "competent" part, but whatever.
>>Let me put it this way then: She had her chance on TNG.
>Still a rather harsh assessment in my view. Saying "give her a connection to
>Tasha or don't let her act in this production" is a tad narrow-minded, wouldn't
>you say? And that is, essentially, what you've been saying.
No, I wouldn't say.
>>>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>>>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
>>Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this
>>role, or else that there will be some connection between the two.
>You'll have to pardon me if I COMPLETELY fail to see how that sentence has any
>logical relation whatsoever to the previous two. Perhaps I'm just being
>dense--care to enlighten me as to just what the bloody hell that has to do with
>Tasha "having lived out her life and then some"? To me, that implies that we
>should let the past lie, and leave Tasha and her fictitious descendants BE.
Right. So, if the new character isn't connected to Yar in any way, then it
should have a different appearance because the two are not related. That's
the connection.
>>>You appear to be saying "well,
>>>Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
>>>her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
>>Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. If she DOES want to come
>>back, then they should either use the same character, or have an explanation
>>for the similarity between different and unrelated characters.
>Zey are playt by ze same actress, Commandant. Zat is ze only explanation ze
>female will giff. :-)
So they're going to have someone appear on screen and say "Hey! You're played
by the same actress who played Lt. Yar!"? I need a Trek-universe explanation.
Real life ones don't go far enough for me.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1991Jun4....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>[etc.]
>>>I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
>>>between two re(oc)curring characters.
>>How's this: they look alike. I know, I know, it's a little farfetched, but
>>it does make a certain sense. :-) That may seem flip, but I honestly see no
>>reason to say ANYTHING else. I mean, I know of at least three other people
>>with the name Tim Lynch, none of which have any connection to me I know of
>>(although, strangely enough, one of them's a Cornellian and another works for
>>the Planetary Society :-) ); and there's nothing wrong with THAT... I had an
>>English teacher whose last name was Lynch and who looked an awful lot like my
>>father, but checked and there was no relation.
>Umm... I'm not at all sure what point you're making here. Similarities of
>name are very, very different (and much more common - by a factor of about
>infinity, in my experience) than exact matches of appearance and voice.
You apparently ignored my second example, which was a similarity of name AND
of face and build.
And, assuming she's a Romulan, it won't be an "exact match of appearance" by
any means. We already know from "The Mind's Eye" that she's got dark hair,
and she'll presumably have the facial ridges common to Romulans. You didn't
even recognize "First Contact"'s Mirasta as the Romulan Sub-Commander Taris,
so I fail to see how there's going to be any "exact match" such as you
describe.
>> These sort of things happen,
>>Michael; the universe isn't always going to give you tidy, neat, contrived-
>>as-hell explanations for things.
>Remember, though, this is dramatic television (sometimes :-), not "the
>universe".
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You don't believe in realism. Silly me.
>>>If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
>>>Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're
>>>ready to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
>>Both of these count as the Rihan being lucky as hell. Considering that a
>>wounded Khan nearly managed to nail the Enterprise with a ship 300 years
>>ahead of his time, I have no problem expecting her to be able to destroy a
>>ship that's by now 20 years past her even when wounded.
>??? What on Earth are you talking about? What ship is "20 years past her"?
The Enterprise-C. The ship she was ON during this whole discussion. It's
20-year-old technology for her.
>>>Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
>>>the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
>>>fifty years.
>>Actually, more like 30; it was fifty by TNG time, and the Norendra 3 incident
>>was 20 years earlier.
>As I recall, "The Neutral Zone" said that the last big encounter with the
>Romulans had occurred 70 years earlier. The Norendra incident occurred 20
>years earlier. 70 - 20 = 50, yes?
You're misremembering. Unless I'm making a grievous error, TNZ said something
like 51 years. And 51 - 20 doesn't equal 50, except for exceptionally low
values of 20. :-)
>>For TWENTY YEARS? C'mon; whatever happened with the Borg, it would have
>>happened fast. And as for a civil war, simple; whichever side had Tasha's
>>advanced knowledge would in my opinion win handily. I'm not a warfare
>>expert; anybody who is want to pitch in and explain how the outcome of WW2
>>would have changed had one side had 1960s-level weaponry?
>Actually, if there had been a slowdown of technological progress as I
>asserted,
>a better comparison might be explaining the outcome of the Battle of Hastings
>(1066) had one side had 1086 technology. Not a large difference.
True, but I don't agree that there's been the kind of slowdown you describe.
TNG technology seems to me to be far, FAR ahead of TOS technology.
>By the way, now that I think about it, what sorts of knowledge do you think
>Yar would have had? Certainly not much useful (i.e., detailed) technological
>knowledge, since she wasn't an engineer.
She was a security and tactical officer, so I would expect her to have a rather
extensive knowledge of shield and weapons systems--just the sort of things that
could give the Romulans fantastic advantage.
>What exactly did she know? Like I said, there doesn't seem to have BEEN many
>big technological jumps in the past 20 years (TNG time).
Statements in "Yesterday's Enterprise" dispute that. It's stated more than
once that if the -D went back with the -C, or the -C were equipped with modern
weapons, the battle would be no contest. Not to mention Tasha's comment about
how vastly shield technology has changed in the twenty years of war.
>>>Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the
>>>two characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
>>>probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
>>Then you obsess too easily about nonessential things, in my opinion.
>Which is (not surprisingly, I'm sure) basically how I feel about your
>worrying about supposed contrived plot twists.
Contrived plot twists are put up on screen. Nonexistent connections are not.
>>The gist is this: an actress has decided to rejoin the show. Having already
>>used the Tasha character as much as they care to, and having already killed
>>her TWICE, the staff decide to go with something else. They pick a Romulan,
>>and make Denise Crosby a recurring villain. Why, pray tell, do you have
>>problems with that?
>If she's a different character, why don't they use a different actress?
>If they're going to use the same actress, there should be some connection
>between the two characters, I think.
And I think that's an insane attitude. Deadlock city. (Do you object to
the fact that Felix Leiter and James Bond have both been played by several
different people? If not, why does the reverse concept gnaw at you so?)
>>>If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
>>>or looked nearly totally different, then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want
>>>to know why they look basically identical.
>>Because they are played by the same actress.
>I meant an explanation within the story.
I realize that. I think it's unnecessary and unreasonable. Similarities of
appearance (NOT "basically identical", as Denise-the-Romulan will look more
like Taris than Tasha, I suspect) don't need to be explained.
Do you want to know why the security guard played by Colm Meaney looks identi-
cal to Chief O'Brien? Do you want to know why Romulan Commander T-Bok's voice
is identical to that of Cardassian Gul Macet, or why one of Macet's aides
sounded exactly like the late Capt. Paul Rice?
>> Coincidences of appearance, and
>>even of name (e.g. the English teacher example I mentioned a ways back in
>>this article) happen. Period.
>I disagree.
You disagree? You don't think they happen? Shall I send you this guy's name,
address, and picture, along with a picture of my father, so you can see the
resemblance for yourself?
>>>To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
>>>because we don't see them.
>>That's because you're a cynical bastard. :-) Allowing any part of the Ent-C
>>to survive is in effect saying, I feel, "What? That big death sentence
>>they were all heading for, that noble sacrifice to change history? Naaah."
>Doesn't bother me.
Apparently.
>>This should make it a little clearer for you--it would feel to me like
>>bringing back Edith Keeler. Does that inspire any more emotion in you?
>Not really.
You would have no problem with a TNG episode that suddenly said "Oh, well,
Edith never really died?" Honestly?
>>Still a rather harsh assessment in my view. Saying "give her a connection to
>>Tasha or don't let her act in this production" is a tad narrow-minded,
>>wouldn't you say? And that is, essentially, what you've been saying.
>No, I wouldn't say.
Deadlock again.
>>>>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>>>>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
>>>Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this
>>>role, or else that there will be some connection between the two.
>>You'll have to pardon me if I COMPLETELY fail to see how that sentence has
>>any logical relation whatsoever to the previous two. Perhaps I'm just being
>>dense--care to enlighten me as to just what the bloody hell that has to do
>>with Tasha "having lived out her life and then some"? To me, that implies
>>that we should let the past lie, and leave Tasha and her fictitious
>>descendants BE.
>Right. So, if the new character isn't connected to Yar in any way, then it
>should have a different appearance because the two are not related. That's
>the connection.
That answer is meaningless. You've bounced from statement 1 to statement 2,
then repeated statement 2 as an explanation of why the two are related.
Tasha is dead. Her character has been dealt with. (Your statement #1.) In
other words, there should be no more reappearances of Tasha, or implausible
explanations of a nonexistent daughter, or a mysterious twin sister, because
there's no ground to be covered with it.
Given that, the obvious argument to make is for there to be NO connection.
Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Complete and utter nothingness. The universe in a
pre-Big-Bang-state. The humor value of most of "Qpid". Dan Quayle's brain.
Make a connection between the two that isn't merely repeating one of them,
or admit you're linking together two disjoint statements.
>So they're going to have someone appear on screen and say "Hey! You're played
>by the same actress who played Lt. Yar!"? I need a Trek-universe explanation.
>Real life ones don't go far enough for me.
Telling statement indeed.
I think we've gone just about as far with this as makes any sense. If you
want to continue this, go ahead, but take it to email.
Charles Chien-Hong Lin
Did it work?
Anyway I was thinking that if they tried to make Crosby's return
as Tasha based on the Tasha from Enterprise-C, wouldn't she remember
things in the ST universe the way it was before?
I also agree that having Tasha returned would be quite contrived.
--
____ _
/ | __|_| cl...@eng.umd.edu
| |
| harles | in "University of Maryland Institute of Technology"
| _|
\_____/ |_|\___/
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>> These sort of things happen,
>>>Michael; the universe isn't always going to give you tidy, neat, contrived-
>>>as-hell explanations for things.
>>Remember, though, this is dramatic television (sometimes :-), not "the
>>universe".
>Oh, yeah, I forgot. You don't believe in realism. Silly me.
[...]
>I think we've gone just about as far with this as makes any sense. If you
>want to continue this, go ahead, but take it to email.
No, I've had enough. Your statement above convinces me that you're not
interested in continuing this discussion in a meaningful manner.
--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM
"Communication is hard to establish
Ron Jarrell
>In <1991May31....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>prisoners. (Statements like "The Romulans don't take prisoners" wouldn't
>wash with me; I could not believe that the Romulans never, ever take
>prisoners, under any circumstances, for all time, considering every individual
>in the species. Especially after seeing them capture Geordi in "The Mind's
>Eye").
especially since Romulans take prisoners all the bloody time; every time
you turn around they're capturing someone.
Think about it; what's the percentage of rom eps from either series
where took someone prisoner vs. when they didn't?
--
Ron Jarrell
Virginia Tech Computing Center
jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
Otto Heuer #3
> Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then? She's paid her dues.
> Her character has lived out its life and then some. If they're going to bring
> in a different character, they ought to bring in a different actress to play
> her.
I dunno. People didn't seem to mind when the actress who played K'ehlar (sp)
was used in multiple roles. Or Mark Lenard in THREE roles!
As long as they do a decent make-up job so the characters don't look anything
alike, I'll be happy. Otherwise you might expect Riker to say "Gee, Commander
T'Naughtyar looks a lot like the late Lt. Yar..." But then Worf never said
"Gee, K'Ehlar looks a lot like Doctor Whatshername..." :-)
Whatever... as long as it's believable.
--Otto "HACK-MAN" Heuer
--
C, Pascal, Fortran, BASIC, Assembly Language, Snobol, Ada, APL, Prolog, LISP
Unix, MS-DOS, ProDOS . . . .... . . . . . . . Audio/Video
ot...@cfsmo.honeywell.com :..: .:.:. : :.' .. :`.': .:.:. :`. : Star Trek
hac...@pnet51.orb.mn.org : : : : :... : `. : : : : : `: Apple IIgs
------I speak for me and not my boss--Honeywell's gain and Usenet's loss.------
Otto Heuer #3
:>If she's supposed to be
:>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
:>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
:
:Why? Here's something that might satisfy us both: suppose it's just your
:plain, ordinary Romulan commander, BUT her close similarity in appearance to
:Tasha is noticed by the Enterprise crew and causes a few problems in dealing
:with her. That would be fine with me; how about you?
NOT!
Jill C. Arnson
>>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show
>>>shortly is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>
>>>>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>>>>Zero problems there.
>>>Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as I'm
lots of stuff inbetween
>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
What bothers me most here is that the death of Tasha in the Alternative
Universe (AU) episode is mentioned as the ONLY episode she dies in. However,
in the "real" universe she has already been killed by a monster that was
left alone on its planet and deserted. (A black shapeless tar-like
creature that is inherently evil) (For the life of me I can't
remember the name of the episode) This was the "senseless death" that is
menitoned in the AU episode.
The question is, can you tell which is the REAL death, or are
there even other Alternative Universes lurking out there?
--
jill c. arnson AT&T Bell Labs, Denver; (303)538-4800
j...@druwa.att.com or att!(druco/drutx)!druwa!jca
*** "When you climb high, remember that the beauty you see is only an
illusion created by G-d to keep your sanity."
Timothy W. Lynch
> What bothers me most here is that the death of Tasha in the Alternative
>Universe (AU) episode is mentioned as the ONLY episode she dies in.
Well, for my part, this is because that's the only Tasha people are proposing
to connect Denise Crosby's new character to. I haven't seen any proposals
for claiming a fantastic reversal of Tasha's death at the hands of Armus.
>However,
>in the "real" universe she has already been killed by a monster that was
>left alone on its planet and deserted. (A black shapeless tar-like
>creature that is inherently evil) (For the life of me I can't
>remember the name of the episode) This was the "senseless death" that is
>menitoned in the AU episode.
Yep. The show was "Skin of Evil", which I would say was pretty poor apart from
a very beautiful memorial scene at the end.
> The question is, can you tell which is the REAL death, or are
>there even other Alternative Universes lurking out there?
Well, this would seem to be an open question, depending on what views of time
travel one takes. I personally would tend to say both deaths are equally
"real", but I'm sure there are people out there who would and will disagree.
Tim Lynch
Hannibal Lecter
I concur with the belief of Alternate Universes, based solely on
slight differences. HOWEVER, Yesterday's Enterprise was based
more on a Time Continuum than that of anything but an Alternate
Universe. Of course, this would contradict most Scientific
Theories proposed by the majority that a person could not disrupt
the past if the person also disrupts his/her existence in the
process. Of course, writers have also theorize that it is
possible to change the future. One thing that was pointed out in
many a case for some writers, is that should a change in history
were to occur, we would not notice it. Also, it would be possibly
for a person from a possible time-line to co-exist with another
time-line only if such a case where the past/alternate time-line
persona does not interfere with the present/alternate time-line's
development as well. Right now, since we have no true dealings
with a 4th dimentional physics, we can debate as to what things
could or could not happen, and gain no ground until we prove it.
Once again, In Yesterday's Enterprise, it was an Alternate Time
Line, Not an alternate Universe.
Timothy W. Lynch
This seems to be getting us nowhere, Michael, since it's really and truly
come
down to individual taste by this point. Everyone has something that really,
really gets under their nails. With Paul Schinder, it's scientific inaccura-
cies. With me, it's what are in my view _incredibly_ contrived ways to
justify
something that doesn't need justification. Your mileage may vary.
But there might be a little bit of solid stuff in here somewhere...
raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <1991Jun3.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[etc.]
>I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
>between two re(oc)curring characters.
How's this: they look alike. I know, I know, it's a little farfetched, but
it does make a certain sense. :-) That may seem flip, but I honestly see no
reason to say ANYTHING else. I mean, I know of at least three other people
with the name Tim Lynch, none of which have any connection to me I know of
(although, strangely enough, one of them's a Cornellian and another works for
the Planetary Society :-) ); and there's nothing wrong with THAT... I had an
English teacher whose last name was Lynch and who looked an awful lot like my
father, but checked and there was no relation. These sort of things happen,
Michael; the universe isn't always going to give you tidy, neat,
contrived-as-
hell explanations for things.
>>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
>>And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
>>been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
>>rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than
>>let herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance
>>technological information) be taken alive.
>If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
>Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're
ready
>to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
Both of these count as the Rihan being lucky as hell. Considering that a
wounded Khan nearly managed to nail the Enterprise with a ship 300 years
ahead
of his time, I have no problem expecting her to be able to destroy a ship
that's by now 20 years past her even when wounded.
>>In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
>>prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
>>technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
>>without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
>>again?
>Another point where lack of knowledge could easily be used to cover
everything
>up.
Not this time. See below.
>Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
>the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
>fifty years.
Actually, more like 30; it was fifty by TNG time, and the Norendra 3 incident
was 20 years earlier.
>(Source: "The Neutral Zone") Who knows WHAT their power level
>was like at the time? (They didn't seem to be especially hot stuff in TOS,
>since they had to start relying on Klingon technology.)
Rather the reverse, as I recall; certainly the cloaking device was their idea
and not the Klingons'...
>There could be a zillion other explanations, too. The Romulans could have
been
>waylaid by the civil war (or, as many have theorized, they've been fighting
>the Borg for a while).
For TWENTY YEARS? C'mon; whatever happened with the Borg, it would have
happened fast. And as for a civil war, simple; whichever side had Tasha's
advanced knowledge would in my opinion win handily. I'm not a warfare
expert; anybody who is want to pitch in and explain how the outcome of WW2
would have changed had one side had 1960s-level weaponry?
I stand by my assertion: if Tasha had been taken prisoner, the Romulans
would
have had SUCH a vast superiority in technology that they'd have beaten the
Federation in a few years at most and we'd be watching "Star Trek: The
Romulan
Generation".
>>>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>>I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
>>Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
>?Three? Sarek, the Romulan Commander, and whom?
Klingon Commander, STTMP.
>Key point in my mind: Only one of those characters (Sarek) was a recurring
>one. Ditto Diana Muldaur's appearances.
That is, in part, because TOS had all the serial continuity of a lemming. (I
mean, let's face it, however else we feel about the two shows, TNG clearly
wins in the establishing of continuing plotlines.) Even Sarek only recurred
twenty years later.
>>>If she's supposed to be
>>>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or
else
>>>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>>Why?
>Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the
>two characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
>probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
Then you obsess too easily about nonessential things, in my opinion. There
have been more than a few films out there with people in multiple roles--did
you worry all that time about what connection they had?
The gist is this: an actress has decided to rejoin the show. Having already
used the Tasha character as much as they care to, and having already killed
her TWICE, the staff decide to go with something else. They pick a Romulan,
and make Denise Crosby a recurring villain. Why, pray tell, do you have
problems with that? Do you also spend a great deal of your time wondering
why TOS Klingons don't look like TNG Klingons? It's about as relevant an
issue, at least to me.
>If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
>or looked nearly totally different (e.g., the difference between Miranda
>Jones and Dr. Kate Pulaski, which had 20 years of aging and a hair color and
>style change behind it) then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want to know why
they
>look basically identical.
Because they are played by the same actress. Coincidences of appearance, and
even of name (e.g. the English teacher example I mentioned a ways back in
this
article) happen. Period.
>(Actually, here's an explanation I'd buy: The character DID look different,
>but had plastic surgery - or the 24th century equivalent - to look the same
>as Yar for some diabolical ( :-) plot.)
Bleh. Equally soapish, but perhaps slightly more palatable as long as they
got over that plot in about half a show and did something NEW.
>> and, as I said
>>last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
>To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
>because we don't see them.
That's because you're a cynical bastard. :-) Allowing any part of the Ent-C
to survive is in effect saying, I feel, "What? That big death sentence
they were all heading for, that noble sacrifice to change history? Naaah."
This should make it a little clearer for you--it would feel to me like
bringing
back Edith Keeler. Does that inspire any more emotion in you?
>>>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then?
Simple--she wants in, she's competent, and there's room. 'nuff said.
>Let me put it this way then: She had her chance on TNG.
Still a rather harsh assessment in my view. Saying "give her a connection to
Tasha or don't let her act in this production" is a tad narrow-minded,
wouldn't
you say? And that is, essentially, what you've been saying.
>>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
>Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this
>role, or else that there will be some connection between the two.
You'll have to pardon me if I COMPLETELY fail to see how that sentence has
any
logical relation whatsoever to the previous two. Perhaps I'm just being
dense--care to enlighten me as to just what the bloody hell that has to do
with
Tasha "having lived out her life and then some"? To me, that implies that we
should let the past lie, and leave Tasha and her fictitious descendants BE.
>>You appear to be saying "well,
>>Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
>>her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
>Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. If she DOES want to come
>back, then they should either use the same character, or have an explanation
>for the similarity between different and unrelated characters.
Zey are playt by ze same actress, Commandant. Zat is ze only explanation ze
female will giff. :-)
(Boy, I really do hope that "Redemption" settles this issue, because I really
don't WANT to have to get that annoyed at the show when it's being set up SO
damned nicely...)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
Michael Rawdon
In <1991Jun3.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>>[on the hypothesis that the Denise Crosby character to rejoin the show
>>>shortly is a Romulan-converted Tasha from the Enterprise-C]
>>>>Well, the possibility of her survival is certainly one I could believe.
>>>>Zero problems there.
>>>Try "zero possibility" there. I've gone over this before, but so far as
I'm
>>>concerned, we've been given ample internal AND external evidence that the
-C
>>>was destroyed. Fully. With all hands.
>>I would point one important thing out to you: We never saw a body.
>You've apparently been reading comic books even longer than I, then.
(Aside: Since 1975. :-)
> I am not
>claiming that it is impossible for them to do it--but I am claiming that it
is
>impossible for them to do it and not snap credibility in my eyes down to
near-
>record lows.
I dunno. A clever bit of tapdancing can usually make me ignore stuff like
that. I'd just like them to come up with an explanation for the similarity
between two re(oc)curring characters.
>>>(The internal evidence would be Data's assessment of the -C's chances as
>>>"none"; not very small, not virtually impossible--ZERO. This is the
ultra-
>>>precise android talking to you. ZERO. Listen to him.
>>I would point one important thing out here: Data did not know - he could
>>not possibly have known - every possible variable in the equation.
>This is true, but combined with everything else it's still a powerful link
in
>the chain.
Not with me. It counts for nothing within the scope of the series as a
whole.
>>Or, the Romulans could have taken prisoners.
>And precisely how do you expect them to manage it? They would have to have
>been VERY lucky, 'cos Tasha's certainly the type to either blow up the -C
>rather than let it be boarded or to stick a phaser in her ribs rather than
let
>herself (and, it should be noted, her extra 22 years of advance
technological
>information) be taken alive.
If she's knocked unconscious, or if a shield gets knocked down and the
Romulans manage to beam her aboard (holding her in transit until they're
ready
to knock her out) then she wouldn't have any choice in the matter.
(Or maybe she and Castille both get taken prisoner and they force her
co-operation by threatening him. And you thought the idea of the new
character
being merely related to her was soap-operaish -- I'm not sure even *I* could
buy that one! :-)
>In fact, the technological argument's a good one. If Tasha had been taken
>prisoner and interrogated, the Romulans would be 20 years further ahead in
>technology than they are, and could blow the Federation out of the stars
>without any intrigue whatsoever. Nope, I still don't buy it. Care to try
>again?
Another point where lack of knowledge could easily be used to cover
everything
up. Remember, at the time of the Ent-C's defense of the Klingon outpost,
the Romulans had been (essentially) incommunicado with the Federation for
fifty years. (Source: "The Neutral Zone") Who knows WHAT their power level
was like at the time? (They didn't seem to be especially hot stuff in TOS,
since they had to start relying on Klingon technology.)
There could be a zillion other explanations, too. The Romulans could have
been
waylaid by the civil war (or, as many have theorized, they've been fighting
the Borg for a while). Any of those could have substantially reduced their
fighting capability.
Also, there don't seem to have been many big technological advances between
the times of TOS and TNG (~80 years). Maybe a 20 year jump on the enemy
isn't enough to be able to sweep over them with ease.
>>>Simply put, I firmly hope there is *no connection whatsoever* between Ms.
>>>Crosby's new character and Tasha Yar. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip.
Absolutely
>>>nil. Everything was set up so that the -C's Tasha is *dead and gone*, and
>>>she should stay that way.
>>Hmm... I firmly hope that either:
>>1) There is a connection between the two, and a close one at that, or:
>Cough, wheeze, hack. Soap opera city.
Not to me.
>>2) The character is not a new regular or recurring character, or:
>I believe you're out of luck there, as I seem to recall she's going to be
>a recurring one (though not a regular).
Unfortunate - especially since I've not cared for Crosby on TNG to date. Not
even, really, in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
>>3) Denise Crosby looks very, very, very different in her new role.
>>I just wouldn't be able to believe anything else.
>I assume you have difficulty trusting Sarek's loyalty, then, since Mark
>Lenard has played THREE different characters, two of them bad guys. :-)
?Three? Sarek, the Romulan Commander, and whom?
Key point in my mind: Only one of those characters (Sarek) was a recurring
one. Ditto Diana Muldaur's appearances.
>>If she's supposed to be
>>a different character, she should be played by a different actress, or else
>>only appear briefly (say, in one or two episodes).
>Why?
Because otherwise I'm going to be wondering what the connection between the
two
characters is for the rest of the series whenever she appears, and it's
probably going to hurt every episode in which she plays a major role.
> Here's something that might satisfy us both: suppose it's just your
>plain, ordinary Romulan commander, BUT her close similarity in appearance to
>Tasha is noticed by the Enterprise crew and causes a few problems in dealing
>with her. That would be fine with me; how about you?
Shades of "Legacy"! :-)
If she were played by a different actress, or only appeared once or twice,
or looked nearly totally different (e.g., the difference between Miranda
Jones and Dr. Kate Pulaski, which had 20 years of aging and a hair color and
style change behind it) then I'd buy it. Otherwise, I'd want to know why
they
look basically identical.
(Actually, here's an explanation I'd buy: The character DID look different,
but had plastic surgery - or the 24th century equivalent - to look the same
as Yar for some diabolical ( :-) plot.)
>>>I may sound dogmatic, but I strongly feel that you can serialize without
>>>resorting to stupid, soap-opera-type revivals of dead characters.
>>Like the sort of thing they did with Tasha Yar in "Yesterday's Enterprise",
>>for instance? It's exactly the same thing, to me.
>YE took place in an alternate universe, so having Tasha there made perfect
>sense. That set up its own internal continuity and stuck to it. Bringing
>her back AGAIN would violate my own sense of continuity--
But not mine.
> and, as I said
>last time, cheapen the sacrifices made in YE all to hell.
To my mind, the sacrifices actually made in "YE" are basically unimportant,
because we don't see them. It's that the characters choose to make those
sacrifices - even if they ultimately don't have to - that counts.
(In other words, to turn around Kell's words: Who cares for results? What
matters were their motives! At least to me as a viewer.)
>>> They've
>>>just started serializing at full speed--if they resort to that type of
>>>revival, my faith in and defense of the show will be lessened to a
>>>considerable extent.
>>Why not just keep Denise Crosby out of the show, then? She's paid her
dues.
>I don't recall "dues" being necessary to be paid.
Let me put it this way then: She had her chance on TNG.
>>Her character has lived out its life and then some.
>Which is precisely why this one shouldn't be the same one! Be consistent.
Then I trust that Denise Crosby will look substantially different in this
role,
or else that there will be some connection between the two.
>>If they're going to bring
>>in a different character, they ought to bring in a different actress to
play
>>her.
>And again, you've given no reason for this. You appear to be saying "well,
>Crosby's made her choice, so let's never let her back on if she changes
>her mind." That seems a little harsh to me. :-)
Well, yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. If she DOES want to come
back, then they should either use the same character, or have an explanation
for the similarity between different and unrelated characters.
--
Michael Rawdon
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet:
CS6FECU@TCSVM
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek than none at all."
Stuart Rubio
>
> What bothers me most here is that the death of Tasha in the Alternative
>Universe (AU) episode is mentioned as the ONLY episode she dies in. However,
>in the "real" universe she has already been killed by a monster that was
>left alone on its planet and deserted. (A black shapeless tar-like
>creature that is inherently evil) (For the life of me I can't
>remember the name of the episode) This was the "senseless death" that is
>menitoned in the AU episode.
>
> The question is, can you tell which is the REAL death, or are
>there even other Alternative Universes lurking out there?
Here is the real problem at the crux of your confusion. We need to examine
which worldview we are going to accept as our chosen sense of reality. On
the one hand, in Mirrow, Mirrow, we see the philosophy that all possible
realities co-exist constantly through the timeline. This allows for the
possibility of members from one reality crossing the cosmic separation
between realities and interacting with their counterparts in those different
universes. This is what Kirk and company did in that episode. But, it is
only possible if the presumption of multiple, constantly existing realities
is accepted as the basis for the theory.
Let us move, now, to the episodes of ST:TNG Skin of Evil and Yesterday's
Enterprise, in which the philosophy has been changed to support the concept
of a single reality. This is accomplished by using the particle physics
concepts inherent in Quantum Mechanics, which assumes that all possible
universes exist, but that they collapse into the single reality that we
know when each decision is made during the course of the timeline. The
difference here is a critical one. In the worldview of ST:TNG, there is
only one reality, as viewed from historical prospective, after the fact
of each decision.
It is this "fact" of a singular universe, surrounded by the Quantum Sea
of infinite possibilities, that would permit Guinan to perceive, to whatever
extent possible, that THE universe had changed. Otherwise, she would have
perceived that she had jumped into an alternate universe of equal potential.
This realization that the universe had changed means that she could pursue
the task of changing reality back to what she believed it should be, by
restructuring the trigger event so that the timeline resumed its acceptable
shape.
If Guinan had been suddenly shifted into an alternate universe, the story
would have changed considerably. It would have been similar, in fact, to
the episode of Remember Me, in which Dr. Crusher is zapped by Wesley into
her own little universe. But, this is not what our plot demonstrates.
Instead of Guinan perceiving herself as being in the wrong place at the
wrong time, she sees the universe as needing to be restructure to suit
her perceptions of reality.
This is the fundamental shift in philosophy that must be dealt with before
we can reconcile the episodes. And, I am afraid that reconciliation of the
philosophies of the two series is not possible. The two philosophies are
distinct and separate to themselves. If the Singular Reality Timeline is
to be adopted as the preferred worldview, it is not possible to have
multiple universes conceived in the same manner as the TOS Star Trek
depicts them.
Peace and long life,
Stuart