Remastered "Journey To Babel"
Steven L.
contained a fair number of SFX, and the remastered versions looked
pretty good.
I had wondered for a long time what they were going to do about the
hangar deck. In this episode, we finally got to see the remastered
hangar deck. Lots more detail--when the hangar deck doors are wide
open, you actually see the reddish light from nearby planet Vulcan
shining on the hangar deck floor. But the shuttlecraft landing was
viewed from off-center, which I didn't find as dramatic as the original
version where we were looking up the centerline of the hangar deck.
Having the NCC-1701 partially illuminated by the light from the planets
and other objects nearby it, was something we didn't get till the
movies, but the remastered TOS is doing it regularly. The reddish light
from Vulcan partially illuminated the Big E in a scene this episode.
BTW: It's interesting that while Scotty is mentioned several times in
the episode, he never appears once in it.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Elvis Gump
> [this is a repost from alt.tv.star-trek.tos. Followups to both, please]
>
> Last night, we got the remastered "Journey to Babel." This episode
> contained a fair number of SFX, and the remastered versions looked
> pretty good.
>
> I had wondered for a long time what they were going to do about the
> hangar deck. In this episode, we finally got to see the remastered
> hangar deck. Lots more detail--when the hangar deck doors are wide
> open, you actually see the reddish light from nearby planet Vulcan
> shining on the hangar deck floor. But the shuttlecraft landing was
> viewed from off-center, which I didn't find as dramatic as the original
> version where we were looking up the centerline of the hangar deck.
I loved it myself, I'm sorry I didn't have a tape running so I could
watch it again.
If I had one wish it would have been for a quickie follow up shot from
that above angle where the shuttle rotated to have virtual little Kirk
and company and seeing virtual Sarek walking to the door to complement
the studio footage, but that's probably too expensive.
Still something like the remastered digital standins like in the
Directors Cut of TMP would have been nice. I wonder if it was more a
case of getting permission again from the actors even if the 'new'
digital likenesses would have been so relatively tiny seen from a distance?
> Having the NCC-1701 partially illuminated by the light from the planets
> and other objects nearby it, was something we didn't get till the
> movies, but the remastered TOS is doing it regularly. The reddish light
> from Vulcan partially illuminated the Big E in a scene this episode.
I know some posters will never be completely satisfied and they are
welcome to the nitpicking but I love all the shots. It's wonderful
seeing the original big E in if not all her glory at least way, way more
than ever before.
> BTW: It's interesting that while Scotty is mentioned several times in
> the episode, he never appears once in it.
Especially since Kirk calls Engineering to have them cut power for the
cat and mouse ploy. I remember reading that part of the absence in many
episodes of actors like Doohan and sometimes Nichols was that they only
had a guarantee of so many episodes a season because the budget was
nonexistent.
It seems like they could have at least negotiated a voice over so Scotty
could 'appear' as his voice when not actually seen.
I wonder a lot of little things like if there were two green tunics for
Shatner in this show. The one he wears with the plunging neckline
halfway down his chest in the initial Sarek in sickbay scene looks
different than the higher arranged collar one he wears earlier in the show.
I also wonder about the logic of William Ware Theiss having Amanda
married to a vegetarian from a planet of vegetarians wearing FUR! And
fuchsia fur at that!
There are so many structural problems with the script that seem
unnecessary I always hated because the 'surprise' that Sarek and Amanda
were Spock's parents made Kirk seem dumb not to know this already.
The murder of the Tellerite also seemed unnecessary in some ways as well
as the idiocy of them even BEGINNING to suspect Sarek of being the
killer. Spock being so quick to volunteer his father for the crime via
the method of the murder seemed too mean spirited really.
I mean if someone was planning the murder how hard would it be to look
up Tellerite physiology and figure out how to whack a dude in the neck
to kill him? Even if they have TWICE the neck muscles and double
strength spines as a human it would still be ridiculously easy to whack
him with a 2"x4" and break his neck. Necks are pretty darn vulnerable
spots. No Vulcan mystic death grip needed.
It was a dumb plot point, and poorly handled. If Spock was my best
friend I'd say to Spock "I assume someone wants us to believe your
father is the killer because it's not only illogical for him to be the
killer, it's idiotic."
I thought it was unnecessary for the more important feud they had as
father and son going already.
And I also always thought at least some sort of identification between
Kirk and McCoy about their own fathers even in the vaguest manners were
inexplicably absent when dealing with Spock. Some sort of "if it were my
dad" line seems like it should have been in there someplace.
McCoy's scene years later where Kelly fleshed out his relationship with
his dying father was about the only powerful thing to ST:V TFF. I think
we already knew Kirk's parents were dead by JtB didn't we? All we know
he had left was the nephew as even his brother was dead by then right?
Philosophical sophistic aside:
I always hated how BLANK they used to insist the backgrounds of
characters to be in the old days as if family was supremely unimportant
and people sprang from nowhere or something. By contrast knowing
Picard's relationship to his father and brother and family was wonderful
as to how it informed essentially what was probably more or less
identical to Kirk's background, abet a rural American one instead of
rural French one if there would still be much difference in the 23/24th
centuries.
There's also an interesting bit that Kirk we sort of assume or at least
I do grew up on a farm like Picard on the vineyard and the whole Luke
Skywalker thing in as the farmboy in Star Wars has a weird symmetry of
farm boys making good even in the far future (or long time ago).
It strikes me too that what we know of Spock's childhood from
"Yesteryear" in the animated series that an opportunity was probably
missed to have Spock grow up in the country on a vegetable farm (planet
of vegetarians remember!) and have him pine to get away from a Sarek who
was being one of those gentry 'farmer' types when he was home.
Growing up on a farm myself far from the city light pollution back in
the 1970's it was wonderful to look up at night and stare at the stars
and wonder about the stuff I saw on Star Trek. It's hard to find a place
where one can see real stars with the naked eye anymore against a real
inky black night. Alas...
End philosophical sophistic aside
Kirk should at least say something like "Spock your father's life is
immensely important to the Federation and by extension the mission of
this ship. And he's also important because he's my best friend's father.
So get off my bridge mister and go help him." Some sort of exchange like
that was a missed opportunity.
It just seemed to be too businesslike and too much like there was never
any doubt that Sarek could actually die. In a way it also made Kirk look
a little compassionless by having him say nothing. Sure if it were say a
junior officer's father or family who wasn't an ambassador I think he
would handle it differently but he should be able to beat the bad guys
at once in a while with his other 428 crewmen right? As it was he did
anyway so it would have proved Kirk even righter.
Still the switcheroo bluff on Spock to get him down to sickbay
ultimately was the payoff for the awkwardness of the omission so it sort
of works out.
Ultimately the father/son thing and Amanda finding her voice to be sick
of logic are enduringly great.
And of course McCoy finally getting the last word, priceless!
--
Fry : "The world needs "Star Trek" to give people hope for the future!"
Leela : "But it's set 800 years in the past!"
-- Futurama
Steven L.
> It's wonderful
> seeing the original big E in if not all her glory at least way, way more
> than ever before.
It's really a tribute to the brilliance of the original Jeffries design.
How many other science-fiction spaceships continue to look that
impressive, even after 40 years? The only other ones I can think of are
the ships in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"--and Kubrick had a much
bigger production budget.
>
> The murder of the Tellerite also seemed unnecessary in some ways....
The Orions' plan made sense: Frame the Vulcans for the Tellarite's
murder, to pit Tellar and Vulcan against each other. Frame the
Andorians for the murder of Kirk, to get Earth and Andor angry at each
other. That would be enough to disrupt the Babel Conference, maybe even
foment a war. It was only after Kirk discovered that the agent wasn't
an Andorian that the Orion ship exercised its last resort option and
tried to destroy the Enterprise altogether.
> as well
> as the idiocy of them even BEGINNING to suspect Sarek of being the
> killer. Spock being so quick to volunteer his father for the crime via
> the method of the murder seemed too mean spirited really.
>
> I mean if someone was planning the murder how hard would it be to look
> up Tellerite physiology and figure out how to whack a dude in the neck
> to kill him?
If you think you can engage in deadly physical combat for the first time
solely by reading a book about it, then you have never engaged in
physical combat. Like the first time you drive a car, it's nothing like
you expected from reading the manual. I suppose you think you can carry
out a deadly karate chop only by reading about it in books, eh?
Anyone who is, according to Dr. McCoy, an "expert" at breaking necks has
had plenty of practice. And at that time, they did not know that they
had Orion agents on board the ship, so they had no other suspects.
> It was a dumb plot point, and poorly handled. If Spock was my best
> friend I'd say to Spock "I assume someone wants us to believe your
> father is the killer because it's not only illogical for him to be the
> killer, it's idiotic."
Kirk implied that, when he specifically asked Spock "Are you saying that
Sarek couldn't have done it?" Spock didn't take the bait. Instead, he
said that Sarek was perfectly capable of having done it.
And Kirk has seen too many bizarre things in his career to foreclose any
possibility. He doesn't go around saying "I assume" too often.
> Philosophical sophistic aside:
> I always hated how BLANK they used to insist the backgrounds of
> characters to be in the old days as if family was supremely unimportant
> and people sprang from nowhere or something.
Neither the Star Trek Writer's Guide nor Roddenberry's original NBC
pitch for TOS ever said any such thing about "Keep the backgrounds
blank." What they did say was, "Maintain a fast pace--avoid long
philosophical discussions" that weren't directly relevant to the plot.
TOS had a faster, more intense pace than TNG, reflecting the difficulty
of even attracting a mass audience in the 1960's unless you gave the
audience plenty of action-adventure, which was "hot" in that era. TNG
could be cooler and more reflective because it had a fan base to start with.
> By contrast knowing
> Picard's relationship to his father and brother and family was wonderful
> as to how it informed essentially what was probably more or less
> identical to Kirk's background, abet a rural American one instead of
> rural French one if there would still be much difference in the 23/24th
> centuries.
>
> There's also an interesting bit that Kirk we sort of assume or at least
> I do grew up on a farm like Picard on the vineyard and the whole Luke
> Skywalker thing in as the farmboy in Star Wars has a weird symmetry of
> farm boys making good even in the far future (or long time ago).
>
> It strikes me too that what we know of Spock's childhood from
> "Yesteryear" in the animated series that an opportunity was probably
> missed to have Spock grow up in the country on a vegetable farm (planet
> of vegetarians remember!) and have him pine to get away from a Sarek who
> was being one of those gentry 'farmer' types when he was home.
>
> Growing up on a farm myself far from the city light pollution back in
> the 1970's it was wonderful to look up at night and stare at the stars
> and wonder about the stuff I saw on Star Trek. It's hard to find a place
> where one can see real stars with the naked eye anymore against a real
> inky black night. Alas...
Your meanderings and musings are a great example of the "long,
philosophical discussions" that Roddenberry would tell his writers to avoid.
bulkington63
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
I thought the effect of the 'moving' phasers trying to hit the Orion
ship was neat.
I also noticed that the actor playing the captured Orion spy was
William O'Connell who played the shakey barber in High Plains Drifter.
Benjamin Pavsner
the older, undigitized version, for example, we see the Enterprise firing
phasers from below the saucer section (meaning our view is looking up as the
ship is headed stage right from our perspective), while the new version
gives a view from behind the saucer section. Granted, no GREAT reason for
the change, but interesting in terms of a change in in perspective.
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:o0pxh.23303$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> [this is a repost from alt.tv.star-trek.tos. Followups to both, please]
>
> contained a fair number of SFX, and the remastered versions looked pretty
> good.
>
> I had wondered for a long time what they were going to do about the hangar
> deck. In this episode, we finally got to see the remastered hangar deck.
> Lots more detail--when the hangar deck doors are wide open, you actually
> see the reddish light from nearby planet Vulcan shining on the hangar deck
> floor. But the shuttlecraft landing was viewed from off-center, which I
> didn't find as dramatic as the original version where we were looking up
> the centerline of the hangar deck.
>
> Having the NCC-1701 partially illuminated by the light from the planets
> and other objects nearby it, was something we didn't get till the movies,
> but the remastered TOS is doing it regularly. The reddish light from
> Vulcan partially illuminated the Big E in a scene this episode.
>
> BTW: It's interesting that while Scotty is mentioned several times in the
> episode, he never appears once in it.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
Ron
> Elvis Gump wrote:
> > It's wonderful
> > seeing the original big E in if not all her glory at least way, way more
> > than ever before.
>
> It's really a tribute to the brilliance of the original Jeffries design.
> How many other science-fiction spaceships continue to look that
> impressive, even after 40 years? The only other ones I can think of are
> the ships in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"--and Kubrick had a much
> bigger production budget.
The Nostromo is still a pretty damn impressive design-- for a
freighter.
Ron
ToolPackinMama
FWIW, the only thing I really love about ENT is the Vulcan ships. GORGEOUS!
MyComputerMan
listings.
What channel or method are you guys watching the remastered ST:TOS
episodes on?
I do not have digital cable, so if you tell me G4, then i'll have to
wait for the DVDs or perhaps iTunes to feature them.
But I really wanna see 'em. I have a MicroMachines enterprise right
here on my desk at work.
John C
Steven L.
But that was 13 years later--the 1979 movie "Alien." So that concept is
only 27 years old. And while it *looked* visually impressive on the
outside, its design features were far less so. We never saw its motive
power or whether it had weapons or navigational deflectors or anything
of the sort. We never learned how the ship actually works.
It's the thought that Jefferies and Roddenberry put into the design
features of the Big E, from turbo-lifts to tractor beams to
matter-antimatter fusion, that made it so impressive.
Prior to 1966, the only other sci-fi spaceship in movies or TV that was
well thought out was the flying saucer in "Forbidden Planet." (And its
resemblance to Star Trek is well known by now)
Steven L.
> I found the battle between the mysterious enemy ship well done. Usually in
> the older, undigitized version, for example, we see the Enterprise firing
> phasers from below the saucer section (meaning our view is looking up as the
> ship is headed stage right from our perspective), while the new version
> gives a view from behind the saucer section. Granted, no GREAT reason for
> the change, but interesting in terms of a change in in perspective.
Likewise, in the remastered "Corbomite Maneuver," we got to see the Big
E with a view point just behind and slightly above the saucer, looking
ahead to the spinning cube, so that the cube's light effects were
reflecting off the top of the Big E's saucer section. Impressive.
George Peatty
wrote:
>It's the thought that Jefferies and Roddenberry put into the design
>features of the Big E, from turbo-lifts to tractor beams to
>matter-antimatter fusion, that made it so impressive.
And, this I am convinced is one of the most important keys to Trek's
success. Had the ships been cheesy rockets or flying saucers, Trek would
have been laughed at, and dead by midseason of its first year.
Trek also gave us a whole new way to think about space travel. While the
concept of warp drive was not new by Trek's time, it wasn't widely known or
popular, either - least, not in the SF I was reading at the time.
Steven L.
> Trek also gave us a whole new way to think about space travel. While the
> concept of warp drive was not new by Trek's time, it wasn't widely known or
> popular, either - least, not in the SF I was reading at the time.
Many sci-fi space stories had some technobabble device to get around the
speed-of-light limitation, like "hyperspace" (in Forbidden Planet) or
"hyperdrive" (Larry Niven's "Known Space" stories).
But prior to Star Trek, I don't remember any sci-fi stories in which the
power source was controlled fusion of matter and anti-matter. That was
amazingly farsighted.
Star Trek covered the field of space SF so well, it's a very tough act
to follow, for any future TV producer.
Steven L.
> I am new to this discussion group. And sadly, I am ignorant on TV
> listings.
> What channel or method are you guys watching the remastered ST:TOS
> episodes on?
Here in the States, the remastered episodes are being shown late at
night, on a variety of local stations all across the country. I live
north of Boston, and I get them on WMUR-09, which is an ordinary analog
ABC affiliate. Check your local listings for TOS episodes shown after
midnight. Either check your newspaper or use an online service like
TitanTV.com or Zap2it.com
GeneK
> And, this I am convinced is one of the most important keys to Trek's
> success. Had the ships been cheesy rockets or flying saucers, Trek would
> have been laughed at, and dead by midseason of its first year.
>
> Trek also gave us a whole new way to think about space travel. While the
> concept of warp drive was not new by Trek's time, it wasn't widely known or
> popular, either - least, not in the SF I was reading at the time.
Hyperdrive was old enough by TOS ("Forbidden Planet"). I think
that Trek's real innovation (at least on a TV or movie screen) was
the idea of a space ship being big enough to be a "Naked City in
space" where there were hundreds of possible stories and any one
of them could be waiting around any corner or behind any door.
Prior to that, all spacefaring SF I had seen took place aboard ships
small enough that you could throw a ball from one end/side to the
other and where you met pretty much the entire crew in the first
ten minutes.
GeneK
Ron
Yes, but there was an intentional difference between the two:
Roddenberry wanted to show a bright and shiny future with carpeted
floors and painted pipes. But Ridley Scott wanted to show a grimier,
dirtier, version of the future-- at least as far as spacecraft go. A
freighter-- and my dad was a merchant seaman, so I've been on a few in
my lifetime-- whether a sea goingvessel or a space ship, is like the
interior of the Nostromo: dark, gloomy, functional. So we didn't see
the propulsion-- but, oh, wait! We did: when the ship landed and took
off. Not much but we did see it.
It was a FTL ship, maybe not zooming around at warp six, but it got
people from a planet 36 to 42 light-years away back to earth in less
than a year. The Millenium Falcon, while lookin' gooood! was
unrealistic as freighters go: too neat and clean. But the Nostromo was
a near-perfect represntation of what an ore-carrying space ship should
be.
Ron
thre...@webtv.net
--------
We respectfully request that you take us to Eden -- Doctor Sevrin :-)
Ron
> I am new to this discussion group. And sadly, I am ignorant on TV
> listings.
> What channel or method are you guys watching the remastered ST:TOS
> episodes on?
> I do not have digital cable, so if you tell me G4, then i'll have to
> wait for the DVDs or perhaps iTunes to feature them.
> But I really wanna see 'em. I have a MicroMachines enterprise right
> here on my desk at work.
> John C
God, no; no cable! Just the local broadcast channel that used to be
Fox, or maybe it was the UPN station? <scratching head> I don't know
any more: for some inexplicable reason the two stations mutually
decided to switch networks. Now Fox is the "MyTV" network then to add
to the fun and confusion, the WB changed to the CW; happy, happy, joy,
joy.
Anyway, the new shows come on at 10:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday
nights followed by Stargate Atlantis then Farscape. Check your local
stations; try going to the TV Guide website and check the weekend
listings for your area.
Ron
Ron
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:07:01 GMT, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Trek also gave us a whole new way to think about space travel. While the
> concept of warp drive was not new by Trek's time, it wasn't widely known or
> popular, either - least, not in the SF I was reading at the time.
Geez, E.E. "Doc" Smith had the idea for the inertialess drive several
decades before Star Trek. His Skylark series just through relativity
out the air lock proposed ships capaable of travelling five times the
speed of light or more-- so, no;
the "warp drive" was hardly a new concept. And in fact, much of Trek
"technology" was based upon Doc Smith's ideas as many writers of that
time had been weaned on the Skylard and Lensman series.
Ron
George Peatty
>the "warp drive" was hardly a new concept. And in fact, much of Trek
>"technology" was based upon Doc Smith's ideas as many writers of that
>time had been weaned on the Skylard and Lensman series.
I agree, though I'm not sure how widely held Smith's views were among other
writers of his day. I still maintain that the warp drive, though not unique to
Trek, the means of generating that drive (controlled matter - antimatter
reaction), and the notion of a "flying city in space" as mentioned earlier by
GeneK were what formed the basis for Trek's early appeal. Without them, we
never get to the stage where we buy into Roddenberry's humanist vision of the
future, or appreciate the chemistry of the main characters ..
Algomeysa2
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> Many sci-fi space stories had some technobabble device to get around the
> speed-of-light limitation, like "hyperspace" (in Forbidden Planet) or
> "hyperdrive" (Larry Niven's "Known Space" stories).
>
> But prior to Star Trek, I don't remember any sci-fi stories in which the
> power source was controlled fusion of matter and anti-matter. That was
> amazingly farsighted.
Well, the hyperdrive in FORBIDDEN PLANET is pretty much depicted as magic.
Part of the strength of STAR TREK is, Roddenberry's realization that it
doesn't really matter if the viewer understands how the matter/antimatter
engine works... just that the viewer understands that there's a Scottish guy
down there who DOES understand the nuts and bolts of it, and is ready to
shovel coal into it if need be.
Contrast that to something like the old 1950s movie DESTINATION MOON, which
goes into excruciating detail on how everything works.
STAR TREK, like 2001, realized that going into every detail isn't so
important, just providing enough versimilitude so that the viewer can buy
into it when Scotty says into the intercom, "We're at Speed 6, but if we go
to Speed 7, it may throw a piston."
GeneK
> I agree, though I'm not sure how widely held Smith's views were among other
> writers of his day. I still maintain that the warp drive, though not unique to
> Trek, the means of generating that drive (controlled matter - antimatter
> reaction), and the notion of a "flying city in space" as mentioned earlier by
> GeneK were what formed the basis for Trek's early appeal. Without them, we
> never get to the stage where we buy into Roddenberry's humanist vision of the
> future, or appreciate the chemistry of the main characters ..
I don't see how the underlying tech behind anything in TOS was
significant to its stories. M/AM could easily have been replaced
by some fictional form of power, and in those episodes in which
they drew off some AM to blow something up a fictional super-
powerful explosive would have worked just as well. In fact, one
of Roddenberry's mantras in TOS was that there was no need to
explain everyday tech, in the same way that a TV cop doesn't need
to explain to the audience the principles behind handheld projectile
weapons, because in real life people who use things every day
usually don't spend much time thinking about their underlying tech,
much less explaining it to others they encounter. We didn't really
care that much how the Enterprise was able to go FTL, or if the
transporter had Heisenberg compensators, or if the ship had
inertial dampeners to prevent the crew from being killed every
time it made a turn. These things were there, they worked,
now let's get on with the story. This was the major reason why
TOS "worked better" than just about every SF series ever made,
including its own descendents.
GeneK
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
I remain amused that the crew of the Jupiter 2 didn't have the slightest
idea how their ship worked. They seemed amazed that it accidentally
went into a hyperdrive, even though there's a frelling GAUGE for it. :)
Bill Mumy's comic book expansion of the series did provide an excellent
explanation.
GeneK
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote
> I remain amused that the crew of the Jupiter 2 didn't have the slightest
> idea how their ship worked. They seemed amazed that it accidentally
> went into a hyperdrive, even though there's a frelling GAUGE for it. :)
>
> Bill Mumy's comic book expansion of the series did provide an excellent
> explanation.
Never read it. So were the Robinsons picked because they won
some kind of lottery?
GeneK
Steven L.
> "George Peatty" <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote...
>
>> I agree, though I'm not sure how widely held Smith's views were among
>> other
>> writers of his day. I still maintain that the warp drive, though not
>> unique to
>> Trek, the means of generating that drive (controlled matter - antimatter
>> reaction), and the notion of a "flying city in space" as mentioned
>> earlier by
>> GeneK were what formed the basis for Trek's early appeal. Without
>> them, we
>> never get to the stage where we buy into Roddenberry's humanist vision
>> of the
>> future, or appreciate the chemistry of the main characters ..
>
> I don't see how the underlying tech behind anything in TOS was
> significant to its stories.
It was significant to the believability of the concept and to the
timelessness of the show. If TOS had relied too much on concepts that
seemed state of the art in the 1960's but were soon antiquated, it would
not have the continuing appeal that it does. How long would reruns of
TOS have found an audience if the Enterprise had been a chemically
propelled rocket ship, like science fiction movies and TV shows always
used to show?
The Big E's instrumentation (especially McCoy's medical scanner) looks
dated by today's standards. But many of the other ideas, from M/AM
fusion to tractor beams, still look fresh and futuristic even now, which
is why Star Trek stories continue to be written even today. You really
got the feeling that this was a real starship, and it could really work.
That sense of realism enabled you to accept it much easier and enjoy
the story, just like we can enjoy a movie about a World War II
battleship and just accept that the battleship really works.
Contrast that with a show like ABC's "Lost," in which it is postulated
that a so-called "geological electromagnetic anomaly" has kept the
entire island invisible from the outside world and that's why the
castaways have not been rescued. Anyone with even a high-school
knowledge of physics will realize that electromagnetism can't render
islands invisible, which means you need that much more willing
suspension of disbelief to enjoy the story. And that's not the only
example in that show.
For science fiction stories to be believable, rather than fantasy, a
writer can't ask his audience for multiple willing suspensions of
disbelief. Star Trek asked us for only one: that FTL travel through
"warp drive" is possible. Everything else, is either conceivable
through current or projected technology (such as turbo-lifts or particle
beam weapons) or is not critical to the storyline (if transporters
really can't work in theory, a spaceship can always use shuttlecraft).
GeneK
> It was significant to the believability of the concept and to the
> timelessness of the show. If TOS had relied too much on concepts that
> seemed state of the art in the 1960's but were soon antiquated, it would
> not have the continuing appeal that it does. How long would reruns of TOS
> have found an audience if the Enterprise had been a chemically propelled
> rocket ship, like science fiction movies and TV shows always used to show?
Considering that the ship was supposed to be traveling between stars
and not just between planets, it wouldn't have had much appeal to the
knowledgeable SF viewer from the start if it had been rocket-propelled.
However, M/AM was not essential, any sort of fictional power supply
that made nuclear reactors seem primitive by comparison would have
sufficed.
> The Big E's instrumentation (especially McCoy's medical scanner) looks
> dated by today's standards.
Not to me, with the possible exception of the rolling drum chronometer.
Regardless of style, none of the TOS Enterprise's instrumentation has
yet been realized in real life with anywhere near the functionality that
was depicted on the show, so how can any of it look "dated by today's
standards?"
> Contrast that with a show like ABC's "Lost," in which it is postulated
> that a so-called "geological electromagnetic anomaly" has kept the entire
> island invisible from the outside world and that's why the castaways have
> not been rescued. Anyone with even a high-school knowledge of physics
> will realize that electromagnetism can't render islands invisible, which
> means you need that much more willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy the
> story.
See the first comment. Technobabble that is easily discerned as
lacking in credibility at the time it is made is certainly bad. OTOH
(and I'm commenting here without ever having seen an episode of
"Lost"), staying away from "geological electromagnetic anomaly"
and just having a bad guy being able to throw a switch on some
technically unexplained device that makes an island invisible
would work just fine. It's worked for over 40 years for Trek's
cloaking devices.
> For science fiction stories to be believable, rather than fantasy, a
> writer can't ask his audience for multiple willing suspensions of
> disbelief. Star Trek asked us for only one: that FTL travel through
> "warp drive" is possible. Everything else, is either conceivable through
> current or projected technology (such as turbo-lifts or particle beam
> weapons) or is not critical to the storyline (if transporters really can't
> work in theory, a spaceship can always use shuttlecraft).
My point precisely. Because the writers resisted the urge to
"explain" the underlying tech behind anything with babble that
could be immediately or eventually understood by the viewers
to be crap, none of the tech in TOS was "critical to the storyline."
They could have continued to refer to the ship's drive as
"hyperdrive" as they did in the first pilot and just referred to
"reactors" as generic devices, the effect on the majority of the
episodes would have been minimal, and we'd still be right
where we are today with a timeless TOS.
GeneK
Ron
> In article <1170823889.313218.141...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Ron says...
Oh, even m/am wasn't new with Trek. Read Smith's Lensman series where
they use various weapons that relied on the reaction between matter
and anti-matter; while not the slim "photon torpedoes" of Trek, it was
the concepts that were behind the photon torpedo and the m/am engines.
And as for a "city in space," that idea pales in comparison with
Smith's Skylark of Valeron, a spaceship a thousand kilometers in
diameter. That makes the Enterprise look like a gnat in comparison.
Folks like Robert A. Heinlein, George Lucas, J. Michael Straczynski,
and so many others either grew up reading Doc Smith's books or were
contemperary with him and acknowledge how much he has influenced them
in various ways. Star Trek is good, but it isn't original. Even the
transporter idea was around years before Trek and was the basis for
three old movies, the Fly (1958), Return of the Fly (1959), and Curse
of the Fly in 1965. And I won't go into the fact that even before the
movies, other SF writers had used the idea of teleportation as a way
of getting around. I don't think there was anything about ST that
wasn't cocnceived previously and somewhere else. 'Sorry.
Ron
Ron
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote
The Robison's were picked because John Robinson was a scientist,
Maureen was a doctor IIRC, and just about every one in the family had
high IQs making them the ideal family to be part of a colonization
plan. Would you pick the family down the street to survive a week in
space on their own? :-)
Ron
Ron
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote...
> My point precisely. Because the writers resisted the urge to
> "explain" the underlying tech behind anything with babble that
> could be immediately or eventually understood by the viewers
> to be crap, none of the tech in TOS was "critical to the storyline."
> They could have continued to refer to the ship's drive as
> "hyperdrive" as they did in the first pilot and just referred to
> "reactors" as generic devices, the effect on the majority of the
> episodes would have been minimal, and we'd still be right
> where we are today with a timeless TOS.
>
> GeneK
Hmmm... How do you account for the immense popularity of all those
books that "explain" Trek technology? If just a good story was all
that mattered, there wouldn't have been a need for books like Mr.
Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, or whatever, would there? :-)
Ron
EvilBill
Cause Trek attracts all sorts - including tech geeks ;)
--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.
Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
George Peatty
>Oh, even m/am wasn't new with Trek. Read Smith's Lensman series where
>they use various weapons that relied on the reaction between matter
>and anti-matter; while not the slim "photon torpedoes" of Trek, it was
>the concepts that were behind the photon torpedo and the m/am engines.
>And as for a "city in space," that idea pales in comparison with
>Smith's Skylark of Valeron, a spaceship a thousand kilometers in
>diameter. That makes the Enterprise look like a gnat in comparison.
Those stories said explicitly the reason those ships were so big was to
house the navigation circles used to compute altitude and azimuth, so the
ship could navigate. It was Smith's brilliance as a scientist (at a
minimum, his cleverness) that made him realize such immense setting circles
would be necessary to explore the universe (at least, the getting home
part); it was somewhat less than brilliant that Smith never foresaw more
advanced methods of computing stellar coordinates or approach vectors ..
(the xxx mark x in Trek)
GeneK
"EvilBill" <quake...@gmail.com> wrote...
> Ron wrote:
>> Hmmm... How do you account for the immense popularity of all those
>> books that "explain" Trek technology? If just a good story was all
>> that mattered, there wouldn't have been a need for books like Mr.
>> Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, or whatever, would there? :-)
>>
>
> Cause Trek attracts all sorts - including tech geeks ;)
To a certain extent, I am one of those, having bought the TOS
Tech Manual, the FJ book of plans, etc. It's fun to read them
and speculate about the tech that might have been behind what
we saw on the screen. However, in no way does enjoying that
speculation mean that the stories of the episodes were in any
way lacking for not giving us what's in the tech manuals on the
screen. In fact, I'm really happy that these books were not
published until after all 79 eps of the series were in the can
and history, because I think trying to work the minutiae in them
into dialog would have been disastrous to the storylines.
GeneK
George Peatty
wrote:
>To a certain extent, I am one of those, having bought the TOS
>Tech Manual, the FJ book of plans, etc. It's fun to read them
>and speculate about the tech that might have been behind what
>we saw on the screen. However, in no way does enjoying that
>speculation mean that the stories of the episodes were in any
>way lacking for not giving us what's in the tech manuals on the
>screen. In fact, I'm really happy that these books were not
>published until after all 79 eps of the series were in the can
>and history, because I think trying to work the minutiae in them
>into dialog would have been disastrous to the storylines.
Roddenberry tells a story of a script he received that went into painstaking
detail over several pages with dialog of how a ship would change course.
This dialog was based on how a ship on water would change course, and
extrapolated to the Enterprise. Roddenberry crossed out all the precise
dialog, and wrote in its place, "Reverse course!" Obviously, he agrees with
you. I don't think Rick Berman would. I don't think I do, either ..
Technobabble gave TNG an ambience that was missing in TOS, though altogether
too many problems were solved by reversing polarity on something or other ..
Anim8rFSK
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
LOL, actually, it turned out the Jupiter 2 was built out of the wreckage
of a crashed UFO. Which was of course designated the Jupiter 1. That's
why it looked like a flying saucer, and how it came to be so far ahead
of where we really were in 1999, and why they didn't understand how it
worked, and why they were really on a secret mission to it's point of
origin. I liked it. :)
Anim8rFSK
George Peatty <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
Yeah, I loved that. Star maps a mile across. :)
GeneK
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote...
> Technobabble gave TNG an ambience that was missing in TOS, though
> altogether
> too many problems were solved by reversing polarity on something or other
> ..
If by "ambience" you mean boring and talky, I agree.
GeneK
Ron
True: I have yo give Heinlein credit for seeing the possibilities
inherent in that little thing called a transistor (Have Space Suit
will Travel) but back in the '30s a computer was somebody who sat down
with penci, paper, and maybe a slide rule (gee, I once had one of
those) or even an abacus and did math the very hard way. But for
whatever the reason behind the size, the Valeron and the DQ were the
two most impressive ships in all of sci-fi ever, at least to me. when
Lucas made the death stars, I thought to myself that they were the
"poor man's" Skylark.
stil, Doc Smith came up with the cell phone, subspace radio, the
tractor/repulsor beam, the hyperspatial tube, the inertialess drive,
matter-antimatter bombs and a few things that nobody has decided to
copy yet like the Sun beam and his idea of a nut cracker. :-)
Ron
Ron
> In article <cvmks2t3q5d35rs1rs1pb601j6mlclv...@4ax.com>,
> George Peatty <peattyg47-1...@copper.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Feb 2007 14:10:54 -0800, "Ron" <r...@quik.com> wrote:
>
> > >Oh, even m/am wasn't new with Trek. Read Smith's Lensman series where
> > >they use various weapons that relied on the reaction between matter
> > >and anti-matter; while not the slim "photon torpedoes" of Trek, it was
> > >the concepts that were behind the photon torpedo and the m/am engines.
> > >And as for a "city in space," that idea pales in comparison with
> > >Smith's Skylark of Valeron, a spaceship a thousand kilometers in
> > >diameter. That makes the Enterprise look like a gnat in comparison.
>
> > Those stories said explicitly the reason those ships were so big was to
> > house the navigation circles used to compute altitude and azimuth, so the
> > ship could navigate. It was Smith's brilliance as a scientist (at a
> > minimum, his cleverness) that made him realize such immense setting circles
> > would be necessary to explore the universe (at least, the getting home
> > part); it was somewhat less than brilliant that Smith never foresaw more
> > advanced methods of computing stellar coordinates or approach vectors ..
> > (the xxx mark x in Trek)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, they didn't want to get (turn the reverb on) lost in space...
space... space... Oh, wait; they did! <g>
Ron
Anim8rFSK
George Peatty
>
>True: I have yo give Heinlein credit for seeing the possibilities
>inherent in that little thing called a transistor (Have Space Suit
>will Travel) but back in the '30s a computer was somebody who sat down
>with penci, paper, and maybe a slide rule (gee, I once had one of
>those) or even an abacus and did math the very hard way.
BTDT. I'm so old we had to interpolate trigonometric functions in high school
.. Thanks to calculators, now I can't even do simple arithmetic ..
>But for
>whatever the reason behind the size, the Valeron and the DQ were the
>two most impressive ships in all of sci-fi ever, at least to me. when
>Lucas made the death stars, I thought to myself that they were the
>"poor man's" Skylark.
*Nothing* has ever approached the Skylark of Valeron. Two of them took out not
just a planet but the entire Chloran galaxy ..
>still, Doc Smith came up with the cell phone, subspace radio, the
>tractor/repulsor beam, the hyperspatial tube, the inertialess drive,
>matter-antimatter bombs and a few things that nobody has decided to
>copy yet like the Sun beam and his idea of a nut cracker. :-)
Yeah, I'm tempted to re-read Smith's books to appreciate better all the
technology he did foresee, but I just can't get past his florid prose .. He had
a brilliant imagination, but he just couldn't write fiction or tell a story
worth beans .. Though, I have to admit, I think Rovol of Rays is one of the most
unique characters in all of SF
Anim8rFSK
George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
> In article <1170911475....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> says...
> >
> >True: I have yo give Heinlein credit for seeing the possibilities
> >inherent in that little thing called a transistor (Have Space Suit
> >will Travel) but back in the '30s a computer was somebody who sat down
> >with penci, paper, and maybe a slide rule (gee, I once had one of
> >those) or even an abacus and did math the very hard way.
>
> BTDT. I'm so old we had to interpolate trigonometric functions in high
> school
> .. Thanks to calculators, now I can't even do simple arithmetic ..
>
>
>
> >But for
> >whatever the reason behind the size, the Valeron and the DQ were the
> >two most impressive ships in all of sci-fi ever, at least to me. when
> >Lucas made the death stars, I thought to myself that they were the
> >"poor man's" Skylark.
>
> *Nothing* has ever approached the Skylark of Valeron. Two of them took out
> not
> just a planet but the entire Chloran galaxy ..
They had it coming, he muttered darkly.
Ron
> In article <eqf7ks0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> George Peatty <pttyg47-1...@copper.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1170911475.766469.19...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, the Chlorans weren't bad folks; they were just
misunderstood. :-)
Ron
Ron
> In article <1170911475.766469.19...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Ron says...
> technology he did foresee, but I just can't get past his florid prose .. He had
> a brilliant imagination, but he just couldn't write fiction or tell a story
> worth beans ..
Oh, I don't know: I don't think he was any better-- or any worse--
than Maxwell Grant, Kenneth Robeson, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or any
other writers of his time. Fifty years from now, some [young] people
will be sitting around and making the same comments about the writers
who are popular now and be compalaining about how cheesy the effect on
Next Gen are. :-)
Ron
Timothy Bruening
> I thought the effect of the 'moving' phasers trying to hit the Orion
> ship was neat.
>
> I also noticed that the actor playing the captured Orion spy was
> William O'Connell who played the shakey barber in High Plains Drifter.
During the climatic confrontation between the Enterprise and the Orion ship, the spy is on the bridge, totally unrestrained. Why doesn't the spy try to knock the weapons officer away from his station to prevent the Enterprise from defending itself?
The Orion ship appears to be spinning rapidly. How does the crew function while spinning rapidly?
When Sarak is accused of murder, why isn't he subjected to a computer lie detector test like in "Wolf in the Fold" or "Mudd's Women"?
Wouter Valentijn
>
>> I thought the effect of the 'moving' phasers trying to hit the Orion
>> ship was neat.
>>
>> I also noticed that the actor playing the captured Orion spy was
>> William O'Connell who played the shakey barber in High Plains Drifter.
>
> During the climatic confrontation between the Enterprise and the Orion ship, the spy is on the bridge, totally unrestrained. Why doesn't the spy try to knock the weapons officer away from his station to prevent the Enterprise from defending itself?
>
> The Orion ship appears to be spinning rapidly. How does the crew function while spinning rapidly?
front of the Enterpise nascelles.
>
> When Sarak is accused of murder, why isn't he subjected to a computer lie detector test like in "Wolf in the Fold" or "Mudd's Women"?
>
--
www.woutervalentijn.net
Abraham Ford: "Nibble on that."
The Walking Dead (s06e09): 'No Way Out'
liam=mail