Acting styles over time (Was:Re:Bill!-Bill!-Bill!...(etc))

icebear

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 1:01:04 AM2/26/02

to

Also sprach mi...@rochester.rr.com am 25 Feb:

> I like Patrick Stewart too, but Bill Shatner was first and best of all,
he was acting in a time that allowed a broad and more colorful range of
expression in acting. <

Kirk/Shatner hit the airwaves at just the time there was a change of
paradigm in standards of TV acting from broad/campy to a more
subtle/"method"-style. Yet having seen "Charlie X" earlier this evening
and "Savage Curtain" on vid over the weekend I can't help but think that
Kirk and the rest of the show bucked this trend to move in the opposite
direction. I can't justify this chronologically as I've never seen the
eps in order and haven't seen some of them in quite a while, but looking
over the ep titles from season one to three it seems that TOS has gone
from original and understated to some sort of lactose-intolerants'(i.e.,
cheesy) worst nightmare as the show progressed.

Granted, some of 1st season (IMHO) blew chunks in the form of "Space
Seed" and "Return of the Archons" while the generally rotten 3rd season
(again, IMHO) produced some of the best eps, "The Enterprise Incident"
and "Day of the Dove". But personal bests-and-worsts aside, does anyone
else see this general trend as TOS progresses? (Or should I say
"regresses"?)

> The trend toward understated acting today is good in many cases, but
sometimes I love to see scenery chewed. <

I think there's plenty of set-munching to be found in each of the Trek
series...

> And best of all, most of the time, he looked like he was having fun
playing Kirk.

And now, he's having fun playing off his cultural iconic status with a
campy underflavor. <

> Yes, I like Patrick Stewart and TNG but it's a lot more fun to see (and
do) a Shatner/Kirk immatation. >snip<

Oh so true. You can spot a bad Kirk immitation, but how often can/do you
spot *any* Picard immitation?

Graeme

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 11:06:56 AM2/26/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>I can't justify this chronologically as I've never seen the eps in order and
haven't seen some of them in quite a while, but looking over the ep titles from
season one to three it seems that TOS has gone from original and understated to
some sort of lactose-intolerants'(i.e., cheesy) worst nightmare as the show
progressed.
>>

I've seen it chronologically. Yes, that's more or less true. Batman had an
enormous fallout in the late 60's, and a lot of shows ruined themselves trying
to latch onto some of its kitsch. Lost in Space was (which started as a
serious space show) was the hardest hit. Trek's third season shows a lot of
the effects too. Get Smart's 5th season had a lot of the Batman effect too.
For example, one of their episodes, named "Smartacus" involved a KAOS villain
who dressed as a Roman emperor, who had Max and the Chief trapped in a Roman
bath. Sound familiar?

>>Granted, some of 1st season (IMHO) blew chunks in the form of "Space Seed"
and "Return of the Archons"
>>

Really? You hated Space Seed? Most people gave that one high marks even
before Wrath of Khan. Archons is nothing to write home about, but I don't
think it blows chunks either. To me the only First Season episode that really
blows chunks is The Alternative Factor.

>>
while the generally rotten 3rd season (again, IMHO) produced some of the best
eps, "The Enterprise Incident" and "Day of the Dove".
>>

Those are good episodes, yes. I don't think they're the very best, I'd only
give them 4 stars out of 5. Tholian Web is the other really good 3rd Season
episode to me, but a lot of people consider that one lackluster.

>>But personal bests-and-worsts aside, does anyone else see this general trend
as TOS progresses? (Or should I say "regresses"?)
>>

EVERYONE sees that general trend.

Led4acs

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 4:27:57 PM2/26/02

to

Icebear wrote:
Granted, some of 1st season (IMHO) blew chunks in the form of "Space
Seed" and "Return of the Archons" while the generally rotten 3rd season
(again, IMHO) produced some of the best eps, "The Enterprise Incident"
and "Day of the Dove". >>>>>

I think Space Seed is one of the best episodes IMHO. What exactly didn't you
like about it?

icebear

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 7:57:14 PM2/26/02

to

In article <20020226162757...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
led...@aol.com (Led4acs) wrote:

So you want my opinion, eh? *cackles evilly* Just remember, you asked
for it... If "Space Seed was one of your personal faves, do yourself a
favor and read no further.

I thought it was a good premise poorly executed. I liked the presaging
of the Eugenics Wars (which we may yet get in some form or another) and
presenting them as future-as-past, and the idea of the villians making
off in sleeper ships with the folks back home never knowing when or if
they'll ever encounter them again.

Khan was way overdone. I know he had good reason to be confident, what
with his superior genes and accomplishments, but he wasn't *that*
justified in thinking himself to be gods' gift to humanity. Most of
Season one was fairly believable, as Trek goes, but this ep just wasn't.
I didn't think much of the movie, either, for different reasons that
I'll spare you having to read.

But what really torqued my nads was the bimbo-de-ep, Marla something. I
know that Trek has never been particularly responsible in showing us
strong or even believable female characters, but this one was really
scraping the bottom of the barrel, like some misogynist's parody in what
was supposed to be serious and thought provoking. The Enterprise is
supposed to showcase some of the Federation's finest, and this one takes
one look at Mr. Superior and forgets years of Starfleet training and any
loyalty she may have had and about 50 IQ points and regresses into some
hormone-addled spoiled teenager.

icebear

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 8:27:35 PM2/26/02

to

In article <20020226110656...@mb-me.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> icebear wrote:
> >>I can't justify this chronologically as I've never seen the eps in order
> >>and
> haven't seen some of them in quite a while, but looking over the ep titles
> from
> season one to three it seems that TOS has gone from original and understated
> to
> some sort of lactose-intolerants'(i.e., cheesy) worst nightmare as the show
> progressed.
> >>

> I've seen it chronologically. Yes, that's more or less true. Batman had an
> enormous fallout in the late 60's, and a lot of shows ruined themselves
> trying
> to latch onto some of its kitsch. Lost in Space was (which started as a
> serious space show) was the hardest hit. Trek's third season shows a lot of
> the effects too. Get Smart's 5th season had a lot of the Batman effect too.
> For example, one of their episodes, named "Smartacus" involved a KAOS villain
> who dressed as a Roman emperor, who had Max and the Chief trapped in a Roman
> bath. Sound familiar?

I haven't seen much Batman and never bothered with Lost in Space (all I
know is that it got ref'd a lot on MST3K), but I do remember the earlier
Get Smart eps as being some of the better/wierder ones.

> >>Granted, some of 1st season (IMHO) blew chunks in the form of "Space Seed"
> and "Return of the Archons"
> >>
>
> Really? You hated Space Seed? Most people gave that one high marks even
> before Wrath of Khan. Archons is nothing to write home about, but I don't
> think it blows chunks either. To me the only First Season episode that
> really
> blows chunks is The Alternative Factor.

I just thought that "Archons" was simplistic and rather boring and not
up to most of the rest of Season 1. "Alternative Factor": Eh. I haven't
seen it in a long time, but it didn't impress me much either way.

> while the generally rotten 3rd season (again, IMHO) produced some of the best
> eps, "The Enterprise Incident" and "Day of the Dove".
> >>

> Those are good episodes, yes. I don't think they're the very best, I'd only
> give them 4 stars out of 5. Tholian Web is the other really good 3rd Season
> episode to me, but a lot of people consider that one lackluster.

"Tholian Web" rocks. I also really liked "The Empath", though I realize
that this is not a popular choice.

> >>But personal bests-and-worsts aside, does anyone else see this general
> >>trend
> as TOS progresses? (Or should I say "regresses"?)
> >>

> EVERYONE sees that general trend.

Glad it's not just me (for a change). It's an interesting point you make
about TV in general getting cheesier in the late '60s. By the time I was
watching Trek ('75) it was already all cut up for syndication packages,
so sometimes I wonder what I've been watching all along anyway.

Led4acs

unread,

Feb 26, 2002, 9:17:34 PM2/26/02

to

> I think Space Seed is one of the best episodes IMHO. What exactly didn't you
> like about it?

Icebear wrote: <snip>

Khan was way overdone. I know he had good reason to be confident, what
with his superior genes and accomplishments, but he wasn't *that*
justified in thinking himself to be gods' gift to humanity.>>>>>>>

I don't know, I think Montalban hit all the right notes. You would expect
someone of his(Kahn's) superior breeding and intellect to have an ego to match.

Icebear wrote:
But what really torqued my nads was the bimbo-de-ep, Marla something. I know
that Trek has never been particularly responsible in showing us strong or even
believable female characters, but this one was really scraping the bottom of
the barrel, like some misogynist's parody in what was supposed to be serious
and thought provoking. The Enterprise is
supposed to showcase some of the Federation's finest, and this one takes
one look at Mr. Superior and forgets years of Starfleet training and any
loyalty she may have had and about 50 IQ points and regresses into some
hormone-addled spoiled teenager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well Kahn knew what he was doing. I think he saw her as vulnerable and lonely
and took fine advantage of that fact. And no amount of StarFleet training can
do away with human fraility. And yeah she screwed up big-time, but it was also
her actions that saved Kirk's life when he was put in the decompression
chamber. I still think it's a real good episode, much better than say, oh ida
know, "The Empath". ; )

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 1:55:11 AM2/27/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>I haven't seen much Batman and never bothered with Lost in Space (all I know
is that it got ref'd a lot on MST3K), but I do remember the earlier Get Smart
eps as being some of the better/wierder ones.
>>

Lost in Space you have to see to believe. It's a flat out, unadulterated, no
holds barred fairy tale... but with a space ship. It started out as a SERIOUS
sci-fi show. Like 50's sci-fi, but much slicker. It was really good... for
about half a season. Then they ran out of castaway stories. There were only
so many times you could check the hydroponic garden or the weather station, so
they started doing Grimm's fairy tales in space. Space Vikings, giant talking
carrots, making androids out of cake batter, space hillbillies, space banditos,
space everything. Imagine two and a half seasons of shows just like Spock's
Brain. That's Lost in Space. But it's such an endearing pile of crapola, with
entertaining characters that it's actually watchable. Just not
take-serious-able.

>>I just thought that "Archons" was simplistic and rather boring and not up to
most of the rest of Season 1. "Alternative Factor": Eh. I haven't seen it in a
long time, but it didn't impress me much either way.
>>

Yeeeeeeeah, I have to admit that Archons is near the bottom of the pile of
Season 1, but only because all the others are so much better. Archons isn't
really *bad* (though I think they improved on it when they ripped it off for
The Apple). And it has its moments. The bit where everyone in the street
suddenly stops, bends down, and picks up a rock or a club will give you
nightmares.

>>"Tholian Web" rocks. I also really liked "The Empath", though I realize that
this is not a popular choice.
>>

A lot of people don't "get" Tholian Web. They say "What's the point? We
all know that Kirk is going to be saved in the end." Yeah, we do, but the
story isn't about that really, it's about the whole question of how well McCoy
and Spock can get along without Kirk in the middle playing referee.
As for the Empath..... uhhhh, let's agree to disagree on that one for now.
We had a big thread about this one recently, and I'm not ready to revisit it
yet.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 2:03:56 AM2/27/02

to

>>So you want my opinion, eh? *cackles evilly*

Oh, as long as you have cards to put on the table, I'm sure we'll be just fine
with this. Though I don't promise to agree, of course...

>>Khan was way overdone. I know he had good reason to be confident, what with
his superior genes and accomplishments, but he wasn't *that* justified in
thinking himself to be gods' gift to humanity.
>>

Even if his opinion wasn't justified (and I'm not so sure about that), that
doesn't mean he wouldn't believe it. Politicians in general and dictators in
particular DO tend to think of themselves that way. Even ones without superior
genes. So I didn't really have any problem with Khan's swagger.

>>But what really torqued my nads was the bimbo-de-ep, Marla something. I know
that Trek has never been particularly responsible in showing us strong or even
believable female characters, but this one was really scraping the bottom of
the barrel, like some misogynist's parody in what was supposed to be serious
and thought provoking. The Enterprise is supposed to showcase some of the
Federation's finest, and this one takes one look at Mr. Superior and forgets
years of Starfleet training and any loyalty she may have had and about 50 IQ
points and regresses into some hormone-addled spoiled teenager.
>>

(Side Note: Actually, Marla was something of a babe. Did anyone mention her
in that other thread?)

Are you saying you don't LIKE Marla, or you don't think she was believable (and
EITHER answer might constitute a reason for disliking the episode, BTW)?

Her behavior WAS reprehensible, to be sure. Though perhaps not as bad as
Captain Tracey, or Ben Finney, and they were men. Frankly, I LIKE having a few
flawed characters in STarfleet, and hate the Next Gen syndrome of "The humans
are always right." Admittedly, Marla pushes the envelope a bit. I suppose I
can see your point here, but I still like the episode quite a bit despite that.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 10:27:03 AM2/27/02

to

<< Lost in Space you have to see to believe. It's a flat out, unadulterated,
no
holds barred fairy tale... but with a space ship. It started out as a SERIOUS
sci-fi show. Like 50's sci-fi, but much slicker. It was really good... for
about half a season. >>

Considerably less than half a season. It's really good for the first 5
episodes, 4 of which are cobbled together from the original pilot. Starts to
go to hell with ep 6, sigh . ..

Chris Smolinski

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 11:25:39 AM2/27/02

to

I haven't seen Lost in Space for years. I do recall the first few
episodes have a very dark feeling. Dr Smith is definately an evil
character, not the humorous if whining guy from the later episodes. I
think the robot was fairly evil also, working for Dr Smith? Certainly a
shock if you first saw the later episodes.

Chris

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 1:30:45 PM2/27/02

to

>>I haven't seen Lost in Space for years. I do recall the first few episodes
have a very dark feeling. Dr Smith is definately an evil character, not the
humorous if whining guy from the later episodes.
>>

Yes, and Smith stayed sinister well into the first year, but it simply wasn't
sustainable. He was so evil that he'd tried to kill the others more than once.
There's simply no believable way that they'd keep somebody that evil around.
They'd have HAD to kill him or banish him or stick him in a freezing tube as a
matter of simple self defense. So he got turned into a buffoon.

>>I think the robot was fairly evil also, working for Dr Smith?

The robot was working for Smith, but it was more of an automaton rather than
evil. It turned into an epigram spouting comedy relief character later on.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 1:33:05 PM2/27/02

to

>>Considerably less than half a season. It's really good for the first 5
episodes, 4 of which are cobbled together from the original pilot. Starts to
go to hell with ep 6, sigh . ..
>>

Yeah, I know the one you mean. The space cowboy guy who was launched sometime
in the 1980's in a CAPSULE, that they wanted to take Will and Penny home.
Okay, I admit that one is a dog. But there were still some good ones after
that before the series really took the plunge into absurdity and didn't look
back.

And even after that there were a few I sort of liked.

Chris Smolinski

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 2:43:48 PM2/27/02

to

Graeme wrote:
>
> >>I haven't seen Lost in Space for years. I do recall the first few episodes
> have a very dark feeling. Dr Smith is definately an evil character, not the
> humorous if whining guy from the later episodes.
> >>
>
> Yes, and Smith stayed sinister well into the first year, but it simply wasn't
> sustainable. He was so evil that he'd tried to kill the others more than once.
> There's simply no believable way that they'd keep somebody that evil around.
> They'd have HAD to kill him or banish him or stick him in a freezing tube as a
> matter of simple self defense. So he got turned into a buffoon.

Makes sense, what else could they do and keep the character?

As I recall, Dr Smith was the medical doctor involved in
selecting/testing the family to go into space, and stowed away on the
ship to sabotage the mission? (I seem to remember him being woken up
before the others) Was it ever revealed who he was really working for?

The first episodes were far different than the rest of the series. It
would have been interesting if they had kept that track. But as someone
else posted, they really couldn't. After a few episodes, it was the same
thing over and over. I recall set of the the B&W episodes where they
were driving around in some sort of what we'd call an SUV? Except I
think the Lincoln Navigator is slightly larger ;-) After that they
were reduced to visiting the planet of the vegetable people.

To keep a TOS tie-in, I just finished reading Shatner's "Star Trek
Memories", and he mentioned that just before TOS, Roddenberry was
'tricked' by CBS into attending a meeting (supposedly to discuss CBS
making Star Trek) where he gave away a lot of ideas for TOS, especially
production info, that gave CBS some hints when they made Lost In Space.

> >>I think the robot was fairly evil also, working for Dr Smith?
>
> The robot was working for Smith, but it was more of an automaton rather than
> evil. It turned into an epigram spouting comedy relief character later on.

"Danger Will Robinson, Danger!"

Chris

Brad Filippone

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 3:22:26 PM2/27/02

to

Led4acs (led...@aol.com) wrote:
: > I think Space Seed is one of the best episodes IMHO. What exactly didn't you
: > like about it?

: Icebear wrote: <snip>

Grrrrrrr! :)

Brad

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 3:37:22 PM2/27/02

to

>>As I recall, Dr Smith was the medical doctor involved in selecting/testing
the family to go into space, and stowed away on the ship to sabotage the
mission? (I seem to remember him being woken up before the others)
>>

He didn't stow aboard deliberately. He programmed the robot to activate 8
hours after launch and destroy the controls. He ended up getting accidentally
trapped onboard when he went back to adjust something that had gotten
unadjusted.

>>Was it ever revealed who he was really working for?

Not directly. His superior was called "Aeolus 14 Umbra", which doesn't tell us
much.

The narrator makes reference to the Jupiter mission being based around
overpopulation on earth, and that if successful, it could be the start of
millions of families emigrating to Alpha Centauri. BUT, he tells us that there
are other nations in the hunt to reach Alpha Centauri first, who'd stop at
nothing to sabotage the mission. At that point we first see Smith.

So, it's implied that Smith is working for a foreign power. When they see the
derelict space station in episode 2, Smith assumes that it belongs to his
people, so they must be a pretty important power. Given that this was
broadcast in 1965, I imagine that it was supposed to be the Soviet Union.

But that's all just inference. They don't actually SAY that.

>>To keep a TOS tie-in, I just finished reading Shatner's "Star Trek Memories",
and he mentioned that just before TOS, Roddenberry was 'tricked' by CBS into
attending a meeting (supposedly to discuss CBS making Star Trek) where he gave
away a lot of ideas for TOS, especially production info, that gave CBS some
hints when they made Lost In Space.
>>

Yeah, that's a famous story. Lost in Space premiered a year before Trek. CBS
did interview Gene about Trek, and probably had made up their mind to say no
before they talked to him. But I don't see any evidence that they stole his
ideas either. Lost in Space got a lot worse in season 2, not better.

The reason this CBS thing came up at all is because the pilot was being made as
a free-ball. Meaning that the studio pays for it. If the network pays for a
pilot and they say no, then it's dead. Cause it's their property. But if the
studio pays for it, they have to pay the cost, but they can offer it to all 3
networks. If one says no, they can try to sell it to a different one.

icebear

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 3:57:51 PM2/27/02

to

In article <20020227020356...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

>snip<

> (Side Note: Actually, Marla was something of a babe. Did anyone mention her
in that other thread?) <

Babehood and bimbohood have a disturbing tendency to go hand-in-hand in
the Hollywood casting machine. It's hard to get cast for much of
anything if you don't look like a Barbie doll. My estimation of a
character's qualities goes beyond such external characteristics as age
and cup-size. And I heartily wish that Blalock would go back to the
factory that spawned her, though I realize that that's both OT for this
NG and irresponsible flame-bait.

> Are you saying you don't LIKE Marla, or you don't think she was believable
> (and
> EITHER answer might constitute a reason for disliking the episode, BTW)?

Both. I didn't like her, and the characterization lacked credibility.

> Her behavior WAS reprehensible, to be sure. Though perhaps not as bad as
> Captain Tracey, or Ben Finney, and they were men.

I guess that's debatable. I'd have to watch all those eps back to back
and compare them. Though to be sure he did some mighty bad things I
thought Finney was rather tragic and opposed to just scuzzy, skanky, or
generally icky. But there were a lot of responsible, heroic-if-flawed
male characters in TOS as well as one-dimensional villians and idiots
while you just don't see that with the female characters. And the
Enterprise crewwomen didn't fare much better than the one-shot guest
characters, either.

And the nominees for "Best Possible Exception" are:

Areel Shaw
Mara
the Romulan Commander
Mea 3
Helen Noel (for making Kirk squirm, if nothing else)
Uhura (when she's not pulling that 'Captain, I'm frightened' number)
Daras
Losira

I realize the above are subjective and personal estimations. Feel free
to fire away.

> Frankly, I LIKE having a
> few
> flawed characters in STarfleet, and hate the Next Gen syndrome of "The humans
> are always right."

One of the reasons I gave up on Next Gen so early. It was one of many
mistakes from TOS I's expected to see corrected for. I've argued before
that society marches on, sort of, yet the Trek franchise remains mired
in 1967. I'm thinking of having bumper stickers made.

> Admittedly, Marla pushes the envelope a bit. I suppose I
> can see your point here, but I still like the episode quite a bit despite
> that.

I get that response a lot, which is why I've basically given up on my
arguement. As much as I can give up on any arguement... ;-)

icebear

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 4:33:17 PM2/27/02

to

In article <20020227015511...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

>snip<

> Yeeeeeeeah, I have to admit that Archons is near the bottom of the pile of

> Season 1, but only because all the others are so much better. Archons isn't
> really *bad* (though I think they improved on it when they ripped it off for
> The Apple). And it has its moments. The bit where everyone in the street
> suddenly stops, bends down, and picks up a rock or a club will give you
> nightmares.

I dunno... "Archons" was just mediocre, whereas "Apple" comes across as
either unintentional comedy or an attempt at serious social commentary
wherein everyone involved missed the boat because they were hiding out
under the pier scarfing down 'shrooms and laughing at the seaweed.

> >>"Tholian Web" rocks. I also really liked "The Empath", though I realize
> >>that
> this is not a popular choice.
> >>
>
> A lot of people don't "get" Tholian Web. They say "What's the point?
> We
> all know that Kirk is going to be saved in the end." Yeah, we do, but the
> story isn't about that really, it's about the whole question of how well
> McCoy
> and Spock can get along without Kirk in the middle playing referee.

I wish they'd done more of that, instead of playing the relationship for
laughs. I'm working on a fic about that, and it's hard to keep the
characters in balance with one another without having either degenerate
into charicature. (Though I must admit that's fun, too. Music cue:
dueling banjos: Go.)

> As for the Empath..... uhhhh, let's agree to disagree on that one for
> now.
> We had a big thread about this one recently, and I'm not ready to revisit it
> yet.

Yes, I remember. It gave a lot of people a case of the squicks and had
them reaching for the Maalox. That's why I didn't go into it in my
previous post. Still, the show did manage to come up with a
thought-provoking ep on what minus salaries must have been a
community-theatre budget. Never underestimate what you can achieve with
a script, a black box set, and a couple of Lekos.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 11:16:39 PM2/27/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>I dunno... "Archons" was just mediocre,

I think it suffers a bit from the other Season 1 episodes it's standing
alongside. If it had been made in Season 3 it would be more highly thought of,
I think. I think it's a good solid episode, though nothing to write home
about, and also, as someone was claiming recently, some of the dialogue in
there was written for Robert T. April and company, and not really changed
enough.

>>whereas "Apple" comes across as either unintentional comedy
>>

The natives are hard not to laugh at. And the pinata-headed Vaal. But the
story itself is serious enough.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 11:18:50 PM2/27/02

to

>>I get that response a lot, which is why I've basically given up on my
arguement. As much as I can give up on any arguement... ;-)
>>

Of all the Trek episodes, none reminds me more of a Lost in Space episode than
The Empath. And I can tell you exactly why. Wall-less rooms that just trailed
off into blackness. That was a Lost in Space trademark.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 27, 2002, 11:30:41 PM2/27/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>Babehood and bimbohood have a disturbing tendency to go hand-in-hand in the
Hollywood casting machine.
>>

And especially in Gene's casting machine, though I don't know if I should open
that can of worms again.

>>It's hard to get cast for much of anything if you don't look like a Barbie
doll. My estimation of a character's qualities goes beyond such external
characteristics as age and cup-size.
>>

How? If the show doesn't give you any more than that to go on?

>>And I heartily wish that Blalock would go back to the factory that spawned
her, though I realize that that's both OT for this NG and irresponsible
flame-bait.
>>

Maybe, though I'm not going to be the one that does it.

>>I guess that's debatable. I'd have to watch all those eps back to back and
compare them. Though to be sure he did some mighty bad things I thought Finney
was rather tragic and opposed to just scuzzy, skanky, or generally icky.
>>

Well, that's because he'd been hiding in the engine room eating space weevil
for weeks. When we heard his voice over the intercom on the day of the
"accident", it sounded sure and clear.

>>And the nominees for "Best Possible Exception" are:

>>Areel Shaw

Yeah, liked her. A formidable character.

>>Mara

Ehhh, there was nothing really wrong with her. I did have a bit of a problem
with the ease with which she was able to throw off a lifetime of programming.
I know the facts were right in front of her face, but that doesn't matter in
cultures like that.

>>the Romulan Commander

Yeah, good character. Though in a way, she pulls a mini-Marla McGiver. No,
not nearly as bad as Marla, but she still puts her personal life ahead of the
mission. Still, yes, I think she's a great character.

>>Mea 3

Good, solid character.

>>Helen Noel (for making Kirk squirm, if nothing else)

Ooooooooh, don't get me started. A GREAT character. Serious and strong, but
also silly and romantically minded deep down.

>>Uhura (when she's not pulling that 'Captain, I'm frightened' number)

An unforgivably underused character, along with Sulu. She had hints of
greatness, but we got to see very little.

>>Daras

Yeah, liked her too.

>>Losira

Hard to say with her, but certainly nothing wrong with her.

icebear

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 6:21:02 AM2/28/02

to

In article <icebear-FE554A...@central.isp.giganews.com>,
icebear <ice...@got.net> wrote:

> Also sprach mi...@rochester.rr.com am 25 Feb:
>
> > I like Patrick Stewart too, but Bill Shatner was first and best of all,
> he was acting in a time that allowed a broad and more colorful range of
> expression in acting. <

>snip<

> > The trend toward understated acting today is good in many cases, but
> sometimes I love to see scenery chewed. <
>
> I think there's plenty of set-munching to be found in each of the Trek
> series...

>snip<

At least we know that the actors are getting their USRDA of dietary
fiber. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's late, I've been up for way too
long... I gotta get a beta for my posts.)

Tieus Albert

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 4:03:45 PM2/28/02

to

> At least we know that the actors are getting their USRDA of dietary
> fiber. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's late, I've been up for way too
> long... I gotta get a beta for my posts.)

William Windom and Morgan Woodward will never have to worry about
constipation again.

Greg Sinclair

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 8:03:28 PM2/28/02

to

about: "The Apple"

"Graeme" wrote:

> The natives are hard not to laugh at. And the pinata-headed Vaal. But
the
> story itself is serious enough.

this is one where i thought the production budget let the script down.
imagine if Vaal had been the size of a mountain. and there were tens of
thousands of natives servicing iterations of him/it all over the planet.
(but the good part of this episode is that if you ever meet that guy from
"starsky and hutch" you can laugh at him, or tell him that his mascara's
running, or something.)

another one that could have been improved with a ten-fold increase in budget
is: "A Taste of Armageddon." what if those disintigration stations had been
the size of football stadiums (i know, it should be stadia -- i just can't
quite bring myself to say it.) and there were hundreds of thousands lining
up to die.

Graeme

unread,

Feb 28, 2002, 8:12:12 PM2/28/02

to

>>this is one where i thought the production budget let the script down.
imagine if Vaal had been the size of a mountain. and there were tens of
thousands of natives servicing iterations of him/it all over the planet. (but
the good part of this episode is that if you ever meet that guy from "starsky
and hutch" you can laugh at him, or tell him that his mascara's running, or
something.)
>>

It actually had a pretty high budget, or so I've heard. Mainly spent on
greenery. There's a joke in World of Star Trek or some place to the effect
that after The Apple, they couldn't have afforded so much as a posey for Kirk's
lapel, if he had had lapels.

>>another one that could have been improved with a ten-fold increase in budget
is: "A Taste of Armageddon." what if those disintigration stations had been
the size of football stadiums (i know, it should be stadia -- i just can't
quite bring myself to say it.) and there were hundreds of thousands lining up
to die.
>>

Hmmmm, yeah that could have made an incredibly shocking shot. But still, the
episode as filmed is pretty good, I think. And feels more proper for
television. TV doesn't show you two armies fighting. Instead it shows you one
soldier from each army going mano a mano, making for more intense though
smaller scale action.

Greg Sinclair

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 2:45:30 AM3/2/02

to

"Tieus Albert" wrote:
>
> William Windom and Morgan Woodward will never have to worry about
> constipation again.

yup windom was lettin' 'er dangle. i don't know who Morgan Woodward is, but
i always liked the guy that played M5's dad. "YOU are great. I-I am great."
now dats acting.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 11:01:49 AM3/2/02

to

>i don't know who Morgan Woodward is,

"We drained four phasers and they STILL came! We killed THOUSANDS and they
STILL CAME!!!"

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 2:50:48 PM3/2/02

to

Hey, he chewed some pretty good scenery as Simon Van Gelder in 'Dagger of the
Mind'

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 3:01:23 PM3/2/02

to

<< Of all the Trek episodes, none reminds me more of a Lost in Space episode
than
The Empath. And I can tell you exactly why. Wall-less rooms that just trailed
off into blackness. That was a Lost in Space trademark. >>

Yep. And sets made of reused crap that just got tossed onto the floor, and
spiral stairways that go nowhere.

And the incredibly bad script.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 3:04:31 PM3/2/02

to

<< CBS
did interview Gene about Trek, and probably had made up their mind to say no
before they talked to him. But I don't see any evidence that they stole his
ideas either. Lost in Space got a lot worse in season 2, not better. >>

Maybe the 'Captain's Log' that Guy Williams kept for the first few eps. Don't
see much beyond that.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 3:10:35 PM3/2/02

to

<< Okay, I admit that one is a dog. But there were still some good ones after
that before the series really took the plunge into absurdity and didn't look
back.

And even after that there were a few I sort of liked. >>

I think it took the plunge right there, and only occassionaly managed to
surface again. Granted, there are a few you wouldn't be embarrassed to be
caught watching after the first 5, but how many? Another 5 maybe, across 3
years?

There's I guess 3 good ones 'cause they feature Guy Williams (Follow the Leader
where he's taken over by a evil alien, Hunter's Moon where they rip off 'most
dangerous game' and Anti Matter Man) and the one where Will gets back to Earth
and nobody believes him, and the one where they go back to Earth in 1947.
Yeah, that's 5.

icebear

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 3:35:13 PM3/2/02

to

In article <20020227233041...@mb-fe.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> icebear wrote:
> >>Babehood and bimbohood have a disturbing tendency to go hand-in-hand in the
> Hollywood casting machine.
> >>
>
> And especially in Gene's casting machine, though I don't know if I should open
> that can of worms again.

Is Roddenberry any worse than any other part of the machine? Not that
I'm trying to stick up for him, but titmonsters in spandex seem to be
the industry standard, regardless of the genre. Maybe I'm just not
watching enough TV to do the compare-and-contrast thing.

> >>It's hard to get cast for much of anything if you don't look like a Barbie
> doll. My estimation of a character's qualities goes beyond such external
> characteristics as age and cup-size.
> >>
>
> How? If the show doesn't give you any more than that to go on?

I'm not talking about just the show. I'm talking about every bit of TV
I've seen, from TOS to Masterpiece Theatre to the evening news anchors.
I spent a while doing live theatre, and it's just as bad there. I read
the scripts and sat in on auditions and casting conferences, and even on
the stage the "Friends" look is considered the norm. Acting ability has
precious little to do with getting cast, esp. for women.

> >>And I heartily wish that Blalock would go back to the factory that spawned
> her, though I realize that that's both OT for this NG and irresponsible
> flame-bait.
> >>
>
> Maybe, though I'm not going to be the one that does it.

Remember that TNG ep in which Riker had to prove that Data wasn't a real
person because he could so easily be turned off? (I don't remember the
title of the ep as I generally think TNG rots and haven't seen much of
it.) Blalock is nothing more than an animated Barbie doll. I'm surprised
that more people don't have a problem with that. Maybe I'm just too old,
the wrong gender to appreciate her enormous if synthetic "talents".

> >>I guess that's debatable. I'd have to watch all those eps back to back and
> compare them. Though to be sure he did some mighty bad things I thought Finney
> was rather tragic and opposed to just scuzzy, skanky, or generally icky.
> >>
>
> Well, that's because he'd been hiding in the engine room eating space weevil
> for weeks. When we heard his voice over the intercom on the day of the
> "accident", it sounded sure and clear.
>
>
> >>And the nominees for "Best Possible Exception" are:
>
> >>Areel Shaw
>
> Yeah, liked her. A formidable character.

It would have been neat if they'd brought her back to try Kirk on one of
his many gray area did-he-bend-it-or-break-it Prime Directive adventures.

> >>Mara
>
> Ehhh, there was nothing really wrong with her. I did have a bit of a problem
> with the ease with which she was able to throw off a lifetime of programming.
> I know the facts were right in front of her face, but that doesn't matter in
> cultures like that.

I got the impression that the reason she "saw the light" so readily was
because she was the only one not affected by the flickering red light
thingie. The red light created and fed on hate. Perhaps it worked more
readily on men because of their higher testosterone levels?

What surprised me was that she didn't do much in the way of fighting
even when she was getting jerked around, especially when Chekov tried to
rape her in the corridor. You'd think that a Klingon second-in-command
would do her best to hand him his head. Maybe TPTB (had things
degenerated to Freiberger by this point?) thought it would have been too
'unladylike'. I read somewhere that Batgirl wasn't allowed to do any
Emma Peel-type moves for just that reason.

> >>the Romulan Commander
>
> Yeah, good character. Though in a way, she pulls a mini-Marla McGiver. No,
> not nearly as bad as Marla, but she still puts her personal life ahead of the
> mission. Still, yes, I think she's a great character.

I think her reasonings were far more complex. RC was thinking with her
head and heart while Marla was thinking with her crotch. RC saw a
potential intellectual companion who could have contributed a lot to her
ship and complimented her own personal goals and strengths as well as a
potential lover. Marla just wanted to get swept off her feet.

RC and Spock were well matched. I also got the impression that Spock
respected her and was genuinely regretful at having to deceive her, and
that he gave into duty at the expense of personal feelings. Of course,
he could have just been a brilliant bullshartist, but I really don't
think he liked doing what he had to do. Some of the best scene work Trek
has to offer.

> >>Mea 3
>
> Good, solid character.
>
>
> >>Helen Noel (for making Kirk squirm, if nothing else)
>
> Ooooooooh, don't get me started. A GREAT character. Serious and strong, but
> also silly and romantically minded deep down.

Yeah. She was quite well-rounded, and not just her figure. It's hard to
establish a well-rounded character within the confines of one episode.

>>Uhura (when she's not pulling that 'Captain, I'm frightened' number)
>
> An unforgivably underused character, along with Sulu. She had hints of
> greatness, but we got to see very little.

I know. Both the characters and the actors who played them really got
shafted. TOS would have worked much better as a true ensemble drama,
IMO. I saw "Charlie X" on Scifi a few days ago, and it was a real treat
to watch her teasing Spock. Not to mention in "Man Trap" when she's
flirting with him about romance in the moonlight. "But Ms. Uhura, Vulcan
has no moon." "I'm not surprised." The "Sorry, neither" to Sulu's "fair
maiden" remark was priceless. I'm surprised they got that one past the
network censors.

> >>Daras
>
> Yeah, liked her too.
>
>
> >>Losira
>
> Hard to say with her, but certainly nothing wrong with her.

Until the very end of the ep she was just some wierd sort of weapon.
Whether the actual Losira invented it I don't remember. But at the end
we see a dignified and capable leader who did the best she could for
those under her and tried to protect others who hadn't gotten there yet.
She had a certain nobility to her, IMO.

Brad Filippone

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 3:44:38 PM3/2/02

to

ANIM8Rfsk (anim...@aol.comNOSPAM) wrote:
: << Of all the Trek episodes, none reminds me more of a Lost in Space episode

Here you must be speaking of another episode, since "The Empath" is one of
the highlights of the third season.

Brad

Graeme

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 6:06:44 PM3/2/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>Is Roddenberry any worse than any other part of the machine? Not that I'm
trying to stick up for him, but titmonsters in spandex seem to be the industry
standard, regardless of the genre. Maybe I'm just not watching enough TV to do
the compare-and-contrast thing.
>>

Perhaps not. It may be that I judge him harsher than others, just because of
the whole image he tried to project of being above it all when really he's
fairly far down on the food chain. When it came to sex he was pretty juvenile
about it. Even The Cage (an episode that I LIKE) is geared around the question
"What if you were trapped in a cage and had a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead
to choose from? Mission Impossible had Barbara Bain, The Big Valley had
Barbara Stanwyck, Get Smart had 99, The Avengers had Emma Peel. There were a
lot of strong regular women characters on TV back then. What did Trek have?
Well, they DID have Number One until Gene folded the character into Spock. But
the whole story about the network not allowing him to have a female first
officer turned out to be untrue, and I have to admit that I resent it somewhat,
mainly because I believed it for a long time.

>>What surprised me was that she didn't do much in the way of fighting even
when she was getting jerked around, especially when Chekov tried to rape her in
the corridor. You'd think that a Klingon second-in-command would do her best to
hand him his head.
>>

I don't know if she was his second-in-command. He introduced her as his
Science Officer. On the Enterprise the same person holds both jobs, but that's
not necessarily the case anywhere else. She's an important officer though,
certainly.

Of course this is after Koloth had indicated that Klingon ships were male only.
Maybe he just meant his own or that it was the norm.

>>Maybe TPTB (had things degenerated to Freiberger by this point?) thought it
would have been too 'unladylike'. I read somewhere that Batgirl wasn't allowed
to do any Emma Peel-type moves for just that reason.
>>

I haven't seen The Avengers in so long, I'm not really sure what Emma Peels
moves are. Batgirl does fight of course, though all the fights in Batman are
pretty simple, larger than life affairs.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 6:14:21 PM3/2/02

to

>>There's I guess 3 good ones 'cause they feature Guy Williams (Follow the
Leader where he's taken over by a evil alien, Hunter's Moon where they rip off
'most dangerous game' and Anti Matter Man) and the one where Will gets back to
Earth and nobody believes him, and the one where they go back to Earth in 1947.
Yeah, that's 5.
>>

Those are good. I also sort of liked the third season ep where they land in
the midwest in the 1940's and get taken for aliens. The one where Smith goes
back in time to the launch date is kind of fun too, though it has several
trademark Lost in Space absurdities too. (But you can't help loving the line
"Not THAT kind of wench, a G.I. winch!")

I also kind of liked one called "One of our Dogs is Missing". And even some of
the fairy tale episodes work well. I liked the black and white one with the
wishing machine. The one with the Space Trader who sabotages their food supply
to buy the rights to Smith's body is good too. (and incidentally that space
trader guy is in Return of the Archons also, as the third member of Reger's
triad). Probably a couple more decent LIS episodes, though they're few and far
between.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 6:21:44 PM3/2/02

to

>>Hey, he chewed some pretty good scenery as Simon Van Gelder in 'Dagger of the
Mind'
>>

True, but Van Gelder wasn't really a heavy. That's why I liked Tracey better.
If only Omega Glory had had a decent script. Woodward was good. He'd chew the
scenery, yeah, but it was enjoyable.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 6:55:37 PM3/2/02

to

<>

hey now, I just said:
<< and the one where they go back to Earth in 1947. >>

that's that one. :-D

<< The one where Smith goes back in time to the launch date is kind of fun too,
though it has several trademark Lost in Space absurdities too. >>

There are several like that, that are SO close, but collapse at the end,
usually due to buffoonary on the part of Smith. The 1947 ep almost does that
when Smith disguises the Robot as a scarecrow, but it's saved by the prolonged
(and one of only two) appearance of the full size J2 on landing legs .. . The
launch date iep s fun, and I like the line "I will be incinerated, you will
just look silly hanging from your toes in space" but it's got SO many problems.
The whole timekeeper guy in the future, and the fact that the past they go to
doesn't remotely resemble the launch they came from (the Robot was aboard LONG
before launch time).

<>

LOL! Yeah. But but but - where did that dog come from? Where did it GO? Is
it really a werewolf?????

<>

It's cool for the kids getting the model J2. But but but - they can wish
anything they want, but there's a size limitation. So why don't they just wish
replacement parts for the J2, one at a time? And then that dumb mummy monster
shows up.

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 11:55:48 PM3/2/02

to

>>but, by gosh, he was in the moment. i loved all those gutteral things he did
in "dagger."
>>

And for Stupid Starfleet Tricks, you can't beat posting a security guard on the
bridge, and then having him stand with his BACK to the turbolift, so he can get
glocked if the Intruder should come to the bridge.

>>it's all about truth. and an actor has to make himself a slave to that.

BUT I WON'T LET YOU TAKE ME BACK!! I'M NOT GOING! I'LL DIE FIRST!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

(Heh, heh, I can chew all I want. Nobody'll remember this show next week...)

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 12:11:17 AM3/3/02

to

>hey now, I just said:
><< and the one where they go back to Earth in 1947. >>
>that's that one. :-D
>

(takes off his glasses and wipes them clean)

>>but it's saved by the prolonged (and one of only two) appearance of the full
size J2 on landing legs .. .
>>

And say what you like about the scripts, the Jupiter was a pretty cool
spaceship.

>>The launch date iep s fun, and I like the line "I will be incinerated, you
will just look silly hanging from your toes in space" but it's got SO many
problems. The whole timekeeper guy in the future, and the fact that the past
they go to doesn't remotely resemble the launch they came from (the Robot was
aboard LONG before launch time).
>>

Yes, definitely flawed. But I sort of have a soft spot for it anyway. The
whole business with the time tapes is so surreal.

><>

LOL! Yeah. But but but - where did that dog come from? Where did it GO? Is
it really a werewolf?????
>>

Big loose end. But it's a good episode, because it actually centers around
Maureen and Judy.

>>It's cool for the kids getting the model J2. But but but - they can wish
anything they want, but there's a size limitation. So why don't they just wish
replacement parts for the J2, one at a time? And then that dumb mummy monster
shows up.
>>

No argument there. Even the best Lost in Space episodes usually have some
gigantic plot hole in them, unfortunately. Remember one called Wild Adventure?
A very fun to watch episode, with Smith going out EVA looking for the green
space chickie. But totally idiotic plot. The robot plots their position, they
argue about whether to go to Alpha Centauri or Earth. Smith won't give them
the data unless they agree to go to Earth. But they "have" to change their
mind because at this time of year the sun is betwen them and the earth and it
would be too dangerous to go around the sun. Remember, that they're making an
interSTELLAR voyage, so the difference we're talking about is trivial. But no,
no, it's too dangerous to maneuver around the sun. And they end up getting
lost again because they have to choose between rescuing the EVA Smith or going
to earth, and they only have enough fuel for one course change.

So they rescue Smith, drift off aimlessly, talk briefly to Alpha Control (which
doesn't bother sending a rescue ship for these idiots), and next week, they've
got fuel again, but somehow they've forgotten where they are, though reasonably
they still have to be right on top of earth.

Really moronic plot. But it had its moments. Even the old sinister Smith is
back momentarily when Major West wants to beat the course information out of
Smith and he pops the paper in his mouth and says something like "One step
closer Major, and I'll swallow it."

>>And by the way - ever notice they didn't address theh little matter of
getting back to the 21st Century, ever again????? The whole rest of the series
takes place in 1947!!!!
>>

Yeah, they just take off again (and presumably get lost again). No return to
the future.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 12:12:40 AM3/3/02

to

>>Another actor from Trek who crossed over was Sherry Jackon, Andrea from "What
are Little Girls Made of?" Did you ever see her LIS episode? No surprise, she
played a total sexpot in a loincloth.
>>

I don't remember that, but I have an LIS episode guide around here somewhere.

>> It was a B&W episode but she still looked damn good. And then I could be
wrong, but didn't Michael Ansara play in a B&W episode as well? Kurt Russel
played his son and competed against Will Robinson in some sort of athletic
competition
>>

Yes, I remember that one. Right about the time the series really went to pot.
It was a silly story, but Michael Ansara is always good.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 12:20:19 AM3/3/02

to

<< And say what you like about the scripts, the Jupiter was a pretty cool
spaceship. >>

Yep. I do cringe about the time they went down to the THIRD level with the
giant engine room and the endless black 'empath' walls and dozens of cartons of
fuel and some bottomless pit thingy . .

<< Yes, definitely flawed. But I sort of have a soft spot for it anyway. The
whole business with the time tapes is so surreal. >>

Yeah, although I was saying '5 eps you wouldn't be embarrassed to be caught
watching' beyond the original 5. The Time Merchant might well be a guilty
pleasure, but I'd switch the station if somebody else walked into the room.

That being said, I keep my LIS Robot model in a meticulously recreated version
of the packing crate from that ep.

<< Remember one called Wild Adventure?
A very fun to watch episode, with Smith going out EVA looking for the green
space chickie. >>

I was citing it yesterday - Vitina Marcus plays the cave girl in the 1960 THE
LOST WORLD.

<< But they "have" to change their
mind because at this time of year the sun is betwen them and the earth and it
would be too dangerous to go around the sun. Remember, that they're making an
interSTELLAR voyage >>

It was painfully clear in this episode that the writers envisioned the entire
series as happening within our solar system.

<< The whole rest of the series
takes place in 1947!!!!
>>

Yeah, they just take off again (and presumably get lost again). No return to
the future. >>

by now they are up to 1980 or so I guess. :-)

And, no matter WHAT I think of the plots, even THE GREAT VEGETABLE REBELLION
was better than the crime against humanity that was LOST IN SPACE THE MOVIE.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 12:28:15 AM3/3/02

to

<>

Black and White, she played one of the space hillbillies.

I love the ep for her, but come on, 'space hillbillies'????

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 12:47:57 AM3/3/02

to

>>Yep. I do cringe about the time they went down to the THIRD level with the
giant engine room and the endless black 'empath' walls and dozens of cartons of
fuel and some bottomless pit thingy . .
>>

Yeah, and I USED that room in the Lost in Space text adventure I did about 9
years ago. The ship is small enough that I couldn't let any rooms go unused.

>>Yeah, although I was saying '5 eps you wouldn't be embarrassed to be caught
watching' beyond the original 5. The Time Merchant might well be a guilty
pleasure, but I'd switch the station if somebody else walked into the room.
>>

Well, actually I'd be embarrassed watching ANY Lost in Space episodes. Cause
the person who caught me wouldn't stop to look which one, they'd just say
"Ewww, you're watching THAT show??"

>>That being said, I keep my LIS Robot model in a meticulously recreated
version of the packing crate from that ep.
>>

Cool ship. Cool robot. Cool chariot. If only they'd spent a little money on
writers...

>>And, no matter WHAT I think of the plots, even THE GREAT VEGETABLE REBELLION
was better than the crime against humanity that was LOST IN SPACE THE MOVIE.
>>

Do you suppose plants have feelings? I just heard this one whimper in pain.
You went there to pluck a posey for MY birthday? I suppose I should be your
slave now to show my gratitude...

Oh man, as long as the War Crimes Tribunal is reconvening, somebody needs to
bring Peter Packer to justice. But yeah, even the dregs of Lost in Space are
funny. That movie was just dull.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 1:42:52 AM3/3/02

to

>>Black and White, she played one of the space hillbillies.

I love the ep for her, but come on, 'space hillbillies'????
>>

Oh, I do remember that episode! The space hillbillies were actually growing a
crop of carniverous plants that were going to cover the area. Why? Well,
because they're ALIENS, and they do weird and alienesque things.

But yeah, Lost in Space had "Space" everything. Space hillbillies, space
cowboys, space English admirals, space vikings, space banditos, space boxers,
space beauty contests, space everything.

Stiiv

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 9:26:05 AM3/3/02

to

On 03 Mar 2002 05:20:19 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
wrote:

>THE GREAT VEGETABLE REBELLION

Moisture!! Moisture!!

Stiiv

http://www.stiiv.com

Stiiv

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 9:29:26 AM3/3/02

to

On 03 Mar 2002 05:28:15 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
wrote:

>I love the ep for her, but come on, 'space hillbillies'????

No sillier than "space bikers" (including Daniel J. Travanti, of Hill
Street fame!).
Stiiv

http://www.stiiv.com

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 11:26:40 AM3/3/02

to

>>THE GREAT VEGETABLE REBELLION
>
>Moisture!! Moisture!!
>

Yeah, but that was Cyrano Jones saying that. Every time I see him scream for
moisture on Lost in Space, I get a picture of him swilling his stolen drink
with extended pinky in Trouble With Tribbles.

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 11:49:01 AM3/3/02

to

<< Yeah, but that was Cyrano Jones saying that. Every time I see him scream
for
moisture on Lost in Space, I get a picture of him swilling his stolen drink
with extended pinky in Trouble With Tribbles. >>

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 8:46:52 PM3/3/02

to

In article <20020302235548...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> >>but, by gosh, he was in the moment. i loved all those gutteral things he
> >>did
> in "dagger."
> >>
>
> And for Stupid Starfleet Tricks, you can't beat posting a security guard on
> the
> bridge, and then having him stand with his BACK to the turbolift, so he can
> get
> glocked if the Intruder should come to the bridge.

It does help explain why Starfleet went through security personnel so
quickly - sometimes 2 or 3 per ep.

> >>it's all about truth. and an actor has to make himself a slave to that.
>
> BUT I WON'T LET YOU TAKE ME BACK!! I'M NOT GOING! I'LL DIE FIRST!
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
>
> (Heh, heh, I can chew all I want. Nobody'll remember this show next week...)

Well, he *was* supposed to have been driven to the brink by Adams and
his reprogramming machine. As the ep went I thought it was appropriate.

icebear

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 9:25:40 PM3/3/02

to

In article <20020302180644...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

Roddenberry's known for telling people what he thinks they want to hear,
getting them to commit to something, and then doing it his way anyway.
Just ask Harlan Ellison (on second thought, don't - you'll regret it),
Dorothy Fontana, David Gerrold, Gene Coon (on second thought, don't -
he's in no condition to answer)... I also suspect that he and Nimoy had
more than one falling out, though I can't prove it and suspect that
Nimoy's too much a gentleman to get into it (speaking ill of the dead
who can't defend themsellves and all that).

Anyway, what'd you hear about the real demise of Number One?

> >>What surprised me was that she didn't do much in the way of fighting even
> when she was getting jerked around, especially when Chekov tried to rape her
> in
> the corridor. You'd think that a Klingon second-in-command would do her best
> to
> hand him his head.
> >>
>
> I don't know if she was his second-in-command.

The way he turned to her to carry out his orders in Engineering I just
got that impression, though you could be right. My other reason is that
"I read it somewhere a long time ago" but darned if I can remember
where, so I can't quote the source.

> He introduced her as his
> Science Officer. On the Enterprise the same person holds both jobs, but
> that's
> not necessarily the case anywhere else. She's an important officer though,
> certainly.
>
> Of course this is after Koloth had indicated that Klingon ships were male
> only.
> Maybe he just meant his own or that it was the norm.

I've wondered about that, and have come up with five possible
conclusions:

1. Each Klingon captain has a fair amount of leeway in dictating
staffing policies for his own ship.

2. Koloth said what he did to provoke the so-called egalitarian
sensibilities of the Federation representatives. (In "The Final
Reflection" - yes, I know it's not cannon - which takes place before
Kirk's time, there's a female second-in-command who came up through the
ranks as a communications specialist. Her captain tells a human
something like, "No, we do not allow women to command, but neither do we
waste anyone with talent." FWIW.)

3. Koloth had already visited the K-7 bar and was a bit gemuetlichkeit
when he said it. This seems unlikely though, because any Klingon that
silly/flacky/iresponsible wouldn't hold his job for very long.

4. The IKF has a change in policy in the year or so between "Tribbles"
and "Dove"

5. TPTB had its heas up its collective a$$ as far as continuity is
concerned. DING DING DING DING We have a winner! Tell 'em what they've
won, Johnny!

> >>Maybe TPTB (had things degenerated to Freiberger by this point?) thought it
> would have been too 'unladylike'. I read somewhere that Batgirl wasn't
> allowed
> to do any Emma Peel-type moves for just that reason.
> >>
>
> I haven't seen The Avengers in so long, I'm not really sure what Emma Peels
> moves are.

I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen an "Avengers" all the way through, but
in the clips that I have seen Mrs. Peel had some serious martial arts
moves. One of the actresses who played Batgirl (again, I can't remember
who - they all sort of blend together in my mind) said that they
wouldn't let her do any Emma Peel-like moves because it was "unladylike".

> Batgirl does fight of course, though all the fights in Batman are
> pretty simple, larger than life affairs.

So's the rest of the show, from what I've been reading on this NG.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 9:47:12 PM3/3/02

to

anim8rfsk wrote:
>>Remember the Space Tribunal that convened to go after Doctor Smith for all
his crimes? A friend of mine hopes they go after Archer, for all the evil he
does out there.
>>

Ohhhh yeah. You know, that was a pretty good episode too. They picked up on
lots of minutia, like the wrench that Professor Robinson had lost when he went
EVA in the third episode. I usually love stuff like that that ties separate
episodes together. Hate it when every episode takes place in a vacuum (pun
intended).

Only in the end they get Smith remanded to their care by claiming he was not
guilty by reason of insanity. And then let him roam free same as usual.

Justin Broderick

unread,

Mar 3, 2002, 11:16:58 PM3/3/02

to

>
> But the facts are these, and you can guess what they mean. The Cage had
a
> female First Officer and Spock (who's described in the series format as
"The
> First Lieutenant", whatever that is exactly).

In a real navy, the first lieutenant is the officer in charge of a ship's
Deck Department, with responsibility for all the above-deck operations of a
ship (boats, anchors, cranes) and the maintenance and upkeep of the
exterior of the ship. Paint chippers and deck swabbers are working for the
first lieutenant, and so are most of the boatswain's mates. It's the
department with the hard-working "real" sailors. In ships without a
separate Damage Control Department, I believe this also comes under the
first lieutenant.

"Number One" is the traditional title for a first lieutenant in the Royal
Navy, not for the second-in-command, which the British call "The Commander"
and the US Navy calls "The Exec" or "XO." Though on smaller British
warships I believe the second-in-command and the first lieutenant are one
and the same.

--Justin

Graeme

unread,

Mar 4, 2002, 2:28:08 AM3/4/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>Roddenberry's known for telling people what he thinks they want to hear,
getting them to commit to something, and then doing it his way anyway.
>>

Yes. A useful trait for a producer, I'm sure, though the idea that he was
somehow above the throng just because he did Star Trek certainly wasn't true.

>>Just ask Harlan Ellison (on second thought, don't - you'll regret it),

Oh, I've read his book. Harlan is a scream. He can be red-faced with rage,
and still type out coherent, logically thought out sentences. His brain
doesn't just turn to tapioca when he's mad like Dulka's, Harlan is probably the
only person in the world who could win a formal debate at the top of his lungs.
He's so funny you don't even mind the obscenities.

>>Dorothy Fontana, David Gerrold, Gene Coon (on second thought, don't - he's in
no condition to answer)... I also suspect that he and Nimoy had more than one
falling out, though I can't prove it and suspect that Nimoy's too much a
gentleman to get into it (speaking ill of the dead who can't defend
themsellves and all that).
>>

Nimoy has said that his business dealings with Gene were always rotten. But
he's avoided being too vocal in his criticisms. In his book I am Spock,
there's a story about one of Gene's practical jokes, and Nimoy's comment that
Gene's favorite jokes always involved putting someone on the spot in an
embarrassing situation, and he seemed to think of it as mean-spirited. You
know the famous joke with Majel being interviewed by John D.F. Black, and
stripping to her undies to try to get the job. I actually like that joke,
because the kicker at the end of everyone happening to walk in and catch him
makes it work. But Nimoy said that Gene's jokes were all like that. He told
one about getting some polished stones from Gene for something or other, and
Gene pretending that he'd given him valuable ones by mistake. I don't remember
the exact details now, but there was nothing funny about it at all, it just
made an awkward situation.

>>1. Each Klingon captain has a fair amount of leeway in dictating staffing
policies for his own ship.
>>

That could be. They seem to have more leeway than the average Starfleet
Captain, and who knows what political maneuvering goes into the mix?

>>2. Koloth said what he did to provoke the so-called egalitarian sensibilities
of the Federation representatives. (In "The Final Reflection" - yes, I know
it's not cannon - which takes place before Kirk's time, there's a female
second-in-command who came up through the ranks as a communications
specialist. Her captain tells a human something like, "No, we do not allow
women to command, but neither do we waste anyone with talent." FWIW.)
>>

This could be too. Koloth seemed to be an inveterate nose tweaker (maybe just
because William Campbell was playing him).

>>3. Koloth had already visited the K-7 bar and was a bit gemuetlichkeit
when he said it. This seems unlikely though, because any Klingon that
silly/flacky/iresponsible wouldn't hold his job for very long.

4. The IKF has a change in policy in the year or so between "Tribbles"
and "Dove"

5. TPTB had its heas up its collective a$$ as far as continuity is
concerned. DING DING DING DING We have a winner! Tell 'em what they've won,
Johnny!
>>

Well, I vote for 1, 2, or 5. Or maybe he just meant that though there are a
handful of Klingon women on an average ship, there weren't enough to "satisfy"
the crew, necessitating their taking shore leave at K-7.

>>I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen an "Avengers" all the way through, but in
the clips that I have seen Mrs. Peel had some serious martial arts moves.
>>

Oh well, nobody on Batman apart from Kato's guest appearance, had anything like
that. It was just standard punch, thwap, Kapow, stuff.

Graeme

to

<< Odd
that Roger C. Carmel committed suicide too. Jones and Mudd both gone the same
way, and roundabout the same time. >>

And Albert Salmi; Tucker the Space Pirate.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 4, 2002, 3:56:01 PM3/4/02

to

anim8rfsk wrote:
>And Albert Salmi; Tucker the Space Pirate.

Yeah, and he did some good work on Twilight Zone too.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 4, 2002, 4:00:49 PM3/4/02

to

>>I take it you mean there weren't enough women on board to "satisfy" their
male crewmates? You make it sound like they get passed around like a bong at a
Dead show.
>>

On Klingon ships, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I mean Koloth himself is the
one who described shore leave in terms of an opportunity to fraternize with the
opposite sex.

>>I'd like to think that the female crew members would have some say in this
and that the by-Fed-standards harsh military discipline would keep that sort of
thing to a minimum, though if we can't expect it in the US military, asking it
of the IKF is probably overreaching.
>>

For the Klingons in TNG and beyond, maybe. For the Klingons in TOS, I wouldn't
be too hopeful.

>>All the more reason for Mara to have had Chekov singing soprano toot sweet.
>>

Man, you know I'd have LOVED to see that scene. I don't have anything against
Chekov that I'm conscious of. So why is it that he's the one character that
I'd like to see get that treatment more than any other? Maybe just because of
the way he'd overact it.

icebear

unread,

Mar 6, 2002, 2:43:23 AM3/6/02

to

In article <20020304160049...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> >>I take it you mean there weren't enough women on board to "satisfy" their
> male crewmates? You make it sound like they get passed around like a bong at
> a
> Dead show.
> >>
>
> On Klingon ships, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I mean Koloth himself is
> the
> one who described shore leave in terms of an opportunity to fraternize with
> the
> opposite sex.

Even the one-dimensional bad guys who were the TOS Klingons must have
known the difference between fraternization and gang rape.

> >>I'd like to think that the female crew members would have some say in this
> and that the by-Fed-standards harsh military discipline would keep that sort
> of
> thing to a minimum, though if we can't expect it in the US military, asking
> it
> of the IKF is probably overreaching.
> >>
>
> For the Klingons in TNG and beyond, maybe. For the Klingons in TOS, I
> wouldn't
> be too hopeful.

I have to wonder what TPTB were on (and where can I get some? Do you
think the Genesis planet evolved some new super-variety of retroactive
hallucinogen?) when they changed the nature of the Klingons - and I'm
not just talking physically - between ST3 and TNG. It's like taking a
shelf and remaning it a golfball with the nothing more than the
rationale "because I said so." I don't think your average three-year-old
buys that unless it's accompanied by a sharp smack. The four-year-old
won't believe it, but will say they do in order to avoid the slap upside
the head. What's the excuse of the five-and-over crowd?
Not that I'm really expecting an answer. But it is a relevant
question I've revisited more than once.

> >>All the more reason for Mara to have had Chekov singing soprano toot sweet.
> >>
>
> Man, you know I'd have LOVED to see that scene. I don't have anything
> against
> Chekov that I'm conscious of.

I sure do. I'm not even sure exactly why, aside from his broken-record
nationalism. He doesn't bother me as a grown-up in the movies, but in
the series he drives me up the friggin' wall. I've asked others who say
they can't stand him why that is, and two things keep coming up:
1. He's like that otherwise okay guy in junior high who seems to
think he's way more cool and cute and suave than he actually is; and
2. One Davey Jones is two too many, thank you very much.

> So why is it that he's the one character that
> I'd like to see get that treatment more than any other? Maybe just because
> of
> the way he'd overact it.

What, you really think he'd overact it any more than anyone else? Of all
thecharacters only Spock would turn in a nuanced performance, and he's
the last one I'd want that to happen to.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 6, 2002, 11:34:20 AM3/6/02

to

icebear wrote:
>>Even the one-dimensional bad guys who were the TOS Klingons must have known
the difference between fraternization and gang rape.
>>

I wasn't thinking of it like that. I was thinking more of the Red Dwarf
episode "Holoship", where it's considered "the height of bad manners to refuse
an offer of sexual coupling". I thought the Klingons might have the same idea
as a kind of cultural thing. No force or gangs involved. But who really
knows?

>>I have to wonder what TPTB were on (and where can I get some? Do you think
the Genesis planet evolved some new super-variety of retroactive hallucinogen?)
when they changed the nature of the Klingons - and I'm not just talking
physically - between ST3 and TNG. It's like taking a shelf and remaning it a
golfball with the nothing more than the rationale "because I said so." I don't
think your average three-year-old buys that unless it's accompanied by a sharp
smack. The four-year-old won't believe it, but will say they do in order to
avoid the slap upside the head. What's the excuse of the five-and-over crowd?
Not that I'm really expecting an answer. But it is a relevant question I've
revisited more than once.
>>

I think what they were on was an ego trip, and you don't want any. Delusions
of godhood. Reality is whatever we say it is at the moment. They thought they
could do just anything and that people would just accept it.

And there was a lot of truth in that, as you point out. The current Enterprise
group have openly announced that they'll pick the story of the moment over
continuity, if those things should come into conflict. And in the old days,
they didn't announce, they just did it. And came up with the most outrageous
things.

Like the idea that the Enterprise wasn't a military vessel, and never had
been. Forget Errand of Mercy and Balance of Terror, the Enterprise is really
just the equivalent of one of Jacque's Cousteau's fishing fleet. This was
during the days of Reagan, when the military was especially un-chic. So the
Enterprise was retroactively removed from that category.
And after we'd seen saucer separation twice in the First Season, people
started asking why the Enterprise doesn't ALWAYS send its families to safety
before going into action, like they did in The Arsenal of Freedom. Richard
Arnold was, for a while, answering that by spreading the idea that the ship
CAN'T separate its saucer. It never could. Where'd you get that idea? Until
Generations, when they decided that it could again.

With the Klingons, basically what happened is that they took the Klingons and
Romulans, and reversed their personalities. The Romulans used to be the
Japanese but with Roman names. TNG took their Bushido-like Code of Honour and
transferred it to the Klingons, and made the Romulans into the conscienceless
nasties instead. I suppose the thinking was that if you're going to have a
former enemy on board, he can't be a complete heavy. And having a Romulan
crewman would have looked too much like having a Vulcan crewman, so they used a
Klingon instead. Well, kinda sorta. He didn't look or act like any Klingons
we'd ever seen in TOS, but he's CALLED a Klingon, and that's just as good.
Heck, he even had a sash like Kor wore in Errand of Mercy (though granted he
wore it over the wrong shoulder). That's what people will really care about.

And they're largely right about getting away with it. Some people get
incredibly bent out of shape if you dare to criticize the show for something as
trivial as a continuity problem.

>>I sure do. I'm not even sure exactly why, aside from his broken-record
nationalism. He doesn't bother me as a grown-up in the movies, but in the
series he drives me up the friggin' wall. I've asked others who say they can't
stand him why that is, and two things keep coming up:
1. He's like that otherwise okay guy in junior high who seems to think
he's way more cool and cute and suave than he actually is; and
2. One Davey Jones is two too many, thank you very much.
>>

I guess that's true. Still, he was *supposed* to be a wet behind the ears
rookie.

>>
What, you really think he'd overact it any more than anyone else? Of all
thecharacters only Spock would turn in a nuanced performance, and he's the last
one I'd want that to happen to.
>>

Spock would be the best, but Chekov is one of the few male characters to
develop a reputation for screaming. He was aware of it too. I heard Koenig
talking about it at a convention once. And then after Trek II, they never let
him do it again, I guess because they were tired of people laughing about it.
Pity.

icebear

unread,

Mar 7, 2002, 6:14:26 PM3/7/02

to

In article <20020306113420...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> icebear wrote:
> >>Even the one-dimensional bad guys who were the TOS Klingons must have known
> the difference between fraternization and gang rape.
> >>
>
> I wasn't thinking of it like that. I was thinking more of the Red Dwarf
> episode "Holoship", where it's considered "the height of bad manners to
> refuse
> an offer of sexual coupling". I thought the Klingons might have the same
> idea
> as a kind of cultural thing. No force or gangs involved. But who really
> knows?

I've only seen a few eps of "Red Dwarf", and that episode was not among
them. I could never get into RD, which puts me at a bit of a
disadvantage because it is so popular with the Trek crowd. My dad never
liked Monty Python, though I suspect it was more that he didn't get the
humor than because he actively disliked it. I guess it's the same with
me and RD.

> >>I have to wonder what TPTB were on (and where can I get some? Do you think
> the Genesis planet evolved some new super-variety of retroactive
> hallucinogen?)
> when they changed the nature of the Klingons - and I'm not just talking
> physically - between ST3 and TNG. It's like taking a shelf and remaning it a
> golfball with the nothing more than the rationale "because I said so." I
> don't
> think your average three-year-old buys that unless it's accompanied by a
> sharp
> smack. The four-year-old won't believe it, but will say they do in order to
> avoid the slap upside the head. What's the excuse of the five-and-over
> crowd?
> Not that I'm really expecting an answer. But it is a relevant question I've
> revisited more than once.
> >>
>
> I think what they were on was an ego trip, and you don't want any.

You got that right. I'm too busy working on my own. :-)

> Delusions of godhood. Reality is whatever we say it is at the moment.
> They thought they could do just anything and that people would just accept it.
>
> And there was a lot of truth in that, as you point out. The current Enterprise
> group have openly announced that they'll pick the story of the moment over
> continuity, if those things should come into conflict.

One of many reasons I haven't watched it.

> And in the old days, they didn't announce, they just did it.

No arguement here. TOS went through, by my count, a new producer every
season (Roddenberry, Coon, Freiberger), all of whom are guilty of having
fallen asleep at the continuity wheel. (There's a name for a Trek ship
for you: the USS Continuity. It's not canon, though, and therefore
doesn't exist. Sounds like something outof a Terry Pratchett or Douglas
Adams book.)

I will, however, put forth the arguenent that in planning TNG for
syndication they has more money than god, did not have the constraints
of network television, and had less of an excuse. Especially for such a
big, whopping, foundation-shaking, are-we-even-watching-the-same show
continuity error as occurred with the Klingons between ST3 and TNG.

> And came up with the most outrageous
> things.
>
> Like the idea that the Enterprise wasn't a military vessel, and never
> had
> been. Forget Errand of Mercy and Balance of Terror, the Enterprise is really
> just the equivalent of one of Jacque's Cousteau's fishing fleet. This was
> during the days of Reagan, when the military was especially un-chic. So the
> Enterprise was retroactively removed from that category.
> And after we'd seen saucer separation twice in the First Season, people
> started asking why the Enterprise doesn't ALWAYS send its families to safety
> before going into action, like they did in The Arsenal of Freedom. Richard
> Arnold was, for a while, answering that by spreading the idea that the ship
> CAN'T separate its saucer. It never could. Where'd you get that idea?
> Until Generations, when they decided that it could again.

Had Arnold even been with the show since the first season? I thought
he'd been brought in after those first separations and then later tried
to plead ignorance when folks got upset over it, as in, "I'm new here,
they never told me, what do you expect, that I'd watch every episode of
the series once I got the job? Who's got time for that? I've got a show
to produce!"

> With the Klingons, basically what happened is that they took the Klingons and
> Romulans, and reversed their personalities. The Romulans used to be the
> Japanese but with Roman names. TNG took their Bushido-like Code of Honour
> and
> transferred it to the Klingons, and made the Romulans into the conscienceless
> nasties instead.

Though Kor was supposed to be a total scumbucket in "Errand of Mercy"
and Koloth was at the very least a doof, both Kang and Mara seemed to be
decent sorts while fulfilling the role of The Enemy. However, given the
generally abysmal quality of the season three eps I'm inclined to write
this off as a happy accident instead of an attempt at intraspecific
variation or complex characters.

While I don't know much about it, I don't see a whole lot in common
between Bushido and...whatever it is the TNG Klingons have going. Do you
have any idea from what point in history (if any) TPTB took their model
(again, if any?)

Then again, maybe TPTB did what most folks do - pick the parts they like
out of a religion and ignore whatever doesn't fit in order to justify
whatever they're doing at the moment.

> I suppose the thinking was that if you're going to have a
> former enemy on board, he can't be a complete heavy.

It would have been much easier and more consistant to have made him a
defector, though. That would have made him a "good guy", yet still would
have left numerous possibilities open for both the character and the
show while providing it with some much-needed continuity.

> And having a Romulan
> crewman would have looked too much like having a Vulcan crewman, so they used a
> Klingon instead. Well, kinda sorta. He didn't look or act like any Klingons
> we'd ever seen in TOS, but he's CALLED a Klingon, and that's just as good.
> Heck, he even had a sash like Kor wore in Errand of Mercy (though granted he
> wore it over the wrong shoulder). That's what people will really care about.
>
> And they're largely right about getting away with it.

There was a period between the cancellation of TOS and the beginning of
TNG when aside from the Bantam and Pocket novels and a new movie every
few years starting in '79 when much of Trek culture came from the fans
themselves in the form of zines, fan-run cons, etc. Do you think that
the fans who were active then are less tolerant of such galactic-sized
lapses as the Great Klingon-Romulan Flip-Flop than those who cut their
Trek teeth on TNG?

> Some people get
> incredibly bent out of shape if you dare to criticize the show for something
> as trivial as a continuity problem.

To summarize, there's continuity problems, and then there's CONTINUITY
PROBLEMS.

>snip<

> >>
> What, you really think he'd overact it any more than anyone else? Of all

> the characters only Spock would turn in a nuanced performance, and he's the

> last one I'd want that to happen to.
> >>
>
> Spock would be the best, but Chekov is one of the few male characters to
> develop a reputation for screaming. He was aware of it too. I heard Koenig
> talking about it at a convention once. And then after Trek II, they never
> let
> him do it again, I guess because they were tired of people laughing about it.
> Pity.

Chekov has a reputation as a screamer? Really? I had no idea. I guess
that's what I get for never having attended a con. Offhand I can only
think of three examples: finding the body in "The Deadly Years", the
death of the non-existant Piotr in "Day of the Dove", and the business
with the Ceti eel ear thingie in ST2. I haven't been keeping score, but
has he done more screaming than Kirk?

icebear

unread,

Mar 7, 2002, 6:20:29 PM3/7/02

to

In article <20020227231639...@mb-fe.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> icebear wrote:
> >>I dunno... "Archons" was just mediocre,
>
> I think it suffers a bit from the other Season 1 episodes it's standing
> alongside. If it had been made in Season 3 it would be more highly thought
> of,
> I think. I think it's a good solid episode, though nothing to write home
> about, and also, as someone was claiming recently, some of the dialogue in
> there was written for Robert T. April and company, and not really changed
> enough.

Does anyone know why April's part was dropped?

Graeme

unread,

Mar 7, 2002, 10:20:35 PM3/7/02

to

>Does anyone know why April's part was dropped?

I think it was just a simple as Gene deciding that April wasn't a butch enough
name for his Captain. Pike is stronger. Only then April was put back in.
Rather than Pike becoming April, it turned out in the animated series that
April was in fact Pike's predecessor. And then April got taken away again when
the animated series was decanonized, leaving him with no official existence.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 7, 2002, 10:46:29 PM3/7/02

to

>>I've only seen a few eps of "Red Dwarf", and that episode was not among them.
I could never get into RD, which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage because it
is so popular with the Trek crowd. My dad never liked Monty Python, though I
suspect it was more that he didn't get the humor than because he actively
disliked it. I guess it's the same with me and RD.
>>

I'd love to know which episodes you saw that you couldn't get into. There are
very few misfires in the bunch.

Very few *overt* Trek references in Red Dwarf except for the classic

"You would risk your safety for a mere mechanoid? Is this the human emotion
that you call friendship?"

"Don't give me that Star Trek crap, it's too early in the morning."

>>Had Arnold even been with the show since the first season?

I understand he got canned soon after Gene died. Thank goodness, he was the
Joseph Goebbels of Star Trek.

>>While I don't know much about it, I don't see a whole lot in common between
Bushido and...whatever it is the TNG Klingons have going. Do you have any idea
from what point in history (if any) TPTB took their model (again, if any?)
>>

I'm taking my Bushido analogy from Steve Cole and Starfleet Battles. Just the
whole idea that they have these intricate honor-based rituals of war. I don't
mean that the rituals substantively resemble Bushido, just that they have them.

>>It would have been much easier and more consistant to have made him a
defector, though. That would have made him a "good guy", yet still would have
left numerous possibilities open for both the character and the show while
providing it with some much-needed continuity.
>>

I'd have preferred that. But as I recall, when TNG premiered, fans were
positively GUSHING over Worf. "Oh, it's great! The Feds and the Klingons are
working together just like the Organians predicted!"

Did the Organians predict that the Klingons that would work with the Feds would
bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Klingons they were talking to at the
time? Maybe offscreen.

>>There was a period between the cancellation of TOS and the beginning of TNG
when aside from the Bantam and Pocket novels and a new movie every few years
starting in '79 when much of Trek culture came from the fans themselves in the
form of zines, fan-run cons, etc. Do you think that the fans who were active
then are less tolerant of such galactic-sized lapses as the Great
Klingon-Romulan Flip-Flop than those who cut their Trek teeth on TNG?
>>

Well, they're probably less *aware* of the changes, and so less annoyed about
them. 1987 and after Trek is more consistent with itself than it is with the
stuff before that.

But still, it's not that consistent even with itself, and people defend it
anyway. On the other hand, there used to be a guy in this town named Art who
was completely devoted to the old show (in the 70's), and would literally go
catatonic if it was criticized in any way; even the bad episodes like Spock's
Brain. He'd just freeze and run for the door as soon as he could. Hard to say
whether the fans of today are more or less blindly devoted than then. But I
would say that the people who are into TOS *NOW*, are probably more picky and
less uncritically devoted than the others. The "fad" of Trek has long since
passed TOS by, and the groupies have largely moved on to the latest thing.

>>Chekov has a reputation as a screamer? Really? I had no idea. I guess that's
what I get for never having attended a con. Offhand I can only think of three
examples: finding the body in "The Deadly Years", the death of the non-existant
Piotr in "Day of the Dove", and the business with the Ceti eel ear thingie in
ST2. I haven't been keeping score, but has he done more screaming than Kirk?
>>

Yeah, he did. It's largely forgotten now, but it was a big running joke then.
I remember when TMP premiered, a lot of people were snickering that a Chekov
scream had made its way into the movie. And again in Trek II.

Let's see, when did Chekov scream? Let me try to remember all I can:

The Deadly Years
Day of the Dove
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II
The Way to Eden
Mirror, Mirror (in the agony booth)
The Tholian Web

I'm sure there were more than that, and I don't know if it was more than Kirk,
but it was funnier with Chekov because he was the green kid.

Charles Kelley

unread,

Mar 7, 2002, 10:21:35 PM3/7/02

to

In article <20020302150431...@mb-cu.aol.com>,
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:

> << CBS
> did interview Gene about Trek, and probably had made up their mind to say no
> before they talked to him. But I don't see any evidence that they stole his
> ideas either. Lost in Space got a lot worse in season 2, not better. >>

"Lost in Space" becomes mostly a comedy to me after about the first
half of the first season. I for one don't take it seriously after then
because of the farce and absurdity in the plots, most of the sets, and, of
course, Dr. Smith.

Stiiv

unread,

Mar 9, 2002, 2:20:25 AM3/9/02

to

On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:21:35 -0500, cke...@lrcm.usuhs.mil (Charles
Kelley) wrote:

>I for one don't take it seriously after then
>because of the farce and absurdity in the plots, most of the sets, and, of
>course, Dr. Smith.

He (Jonathan Harris) is one of the best actors ever to grace TV. Dr.
Smith was a brilliant creation, especially considering the goofy turn
the show took. HE WAS THE ONLY REASON TO WATCH.

Stiiv

http://www.stiiv.com

Graeme

unread,

Mar 9, 2002, 11:39:27 AM3/9/02

to

>He (Jonathan Harris) is one of the best actors ever to grace TV. Dr.
>Smith was a brilliant creation, especially considering the goofy turn
>the show took. HE WAS THE ONLY REASON TO WATCH.
>
>

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. The cast was mostly good. Will, Smith and the
Robot had the most chemistry, but everyone was good with the time they were
given.

I always loved the Major West/Smith interactions, and how the supposed hothead
Don would always get talked out of it so easily. You know,

(West) "All right Smith, this time I'm going to tear you apart!"
(Professor R) "Don, you can't."
(West) "Okay."

icebear

unread,

Mar 9, 2002, 3:56:18 PM3/9/02

to

In article <20020307224629...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> >>I've only seen a few eps of "Red Dwarf", and that episode was not among
> >>them.
> I could never get into RD, which puts me at a bit of a disadvantage because
> it is so popular with the Trek crowd.

>snip<

> I'd love to know which episodes you saw that you couldn't get into. There
> are
> very few misfires in the bunch.

I really don't remember. I just watched a few when it hit our local PBS
station maybe ten years ago, thought it was so-so, and didn't follow it.

>snip<

> >>Had Arnold even been with the show since the first season?
>
> I understand he got canned soon after Gene died. Thank goodness, he was the
> Joseph Goebbels of Star Trek.

B&B or someone must have hired him back. I couldn't find much on him
with a Google search, but according to us.imdb.com he's since worked on
Voyager, First Contact, Enterprise, Nemesis, and a bunch of rather
dubious-looking Trek video games. (He's noticably lacking from the
credits of DS9, which IMHO was the only other Trek series worth tuning
in for, at least in the begining.)

So what'd he do to earn the title of "the Goebbels of Trek"? Dish it,
man!

>snip<

> >>It would have been much easier and more consistant to have made him a
> defector, though. That would have made him a "good guy", yet still would have
> left numerous possibilities open for both the character and the show while
> providing it with some much-needed continuity.
> >>
>
> I'd have preferred that. But as I recall, when TNG premiered, fans were
> positively GUSHING over Worf. "Oh, it's great! The Feds and the Klingons
> are working together just like the Organians predicted!"
>
> Did the Organians predict that the Klingons that would work with the Feds
> would bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Klingons they were talking to at
> the time? Maybe offscreen.

At the premire party at which I saw the first ep Worf did not go over
well at all, largely for that reason. Someone said sarcastically, "that
particular scene of 'Errand of Mercy' must have been edited out and left
on the cutting room floor". I wish I remember who said that so I could
credit them, but that's become my standard response to that particular
claim. (Someone else said regarding Worf: "Methinks I smell a
stereotype." But that's a whole 'nother thread...)

> >>There was a period between the cancellation of TOS and the beginning of TNG
> when aside from the Bantam and Pocket novels and a new movie every few years
> starting in '79 when much of Trek culture came from the fans themselves in
> the
> form of zines, fan-run cons, etc. Do you think that the fans who were active
> then are less tolerant of such galactic-sized lapses as the Great
> Klingon-Romulan Flip-Flop than those who cut their Trek teeth on TNG?
> >>
>
> Well, they're probably less *aware* of the changes,

The only way I can see that that would be true is that if they weren't
watching *at all*.

> and so less annoyed about
> them. 1987 and after Trek is more consistent with itself than it is with the
> stuff before that.
>
> But still, it's not that consistent even with itself, and people defend it
> anyway. On the other hand, there used to be a guy in this town named Art who
> was completely devoted to the old show (in the 70's), and would literally go
> catatonic if it was criticized in any way; even the bad episodes like Spock's
> Brain. He'd just freeze and run for the door as soon as he could.

Poor guy. Obviously I can't say from here, but I don't think Trek is at
the real heart of Art's response...

> Hard to say
> whether the fans of today are more or less blindly devoted than then. But I
> would say that the people who are into TOS *NOW*, are probably more picky and
> less uncritically devoted than the others.

What does the *Now* part have to do with it, as opposed to the TOS part?
Do you think it's anything more than loyalty?

> The "fad" of Trek has long since
> passed TOS by, and the groupies have largely moved on to the latest thing.

I remember a resurgance in interest when ST:TMP came out, but never
really thought of TOS as a fad.

I once had a discussion with a fellow TOS fan in which one of us (I
can't remember which) brought up the idea that the Trek reading,
writing, and organizing set was a bit more demanding about things like
continuity and rationales than those who were content to get all their
ideas about Trek from the screen.
Another idea that came up was age. At the time it seemed to both of
us that the most slavering TNG fans dismissed TOS fans as a bunch of
geezers simply because they weren't old enough to have really had to
scrounge for their Trek fix during the "dry years" before TNG and its
spin-offs hit.

> >>Chekov has a reputation as a screamer? Really? I had no idea. I guess

>snip<

> Yeah, he did. It's largely forgotten now, but it was a big running joke
> then. I remember when TMP premiered, a lot of people were snickering that a Chekov
> scream had made its way into the movie. And again in Trek II.
>
> Let's see, when did Chekov scream? Let me try to remember all I can:
>
> The Deadly Years
> Day of the Dove
> Star Trek: The Motion Picture
> Star Trek II
> The Way to Eden
> Mirror, Mirror (in the agony booth)
> The Tholian Web
>
> I'm sure there were more than that, and I don't know if it was more than
> Kirk, but it was funnier with Chekov because he was the green kid.

More appropriate, anyway. You can't have the well-seasoned hero acting
like that, though it might be more forgivable with a greenhorn.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 10, 2002, 6:18:00 PM3/10/02

to

>>So what'd he do to earn the title of "the Goebbels of Trek"? Dish it, man!
>>

Mainly things like I've already mentioned. Professional history revisionist,
and propagandist. I don't mean to imply he's a Nazi. Check out the Afterwords
to Harlan Ellison's City book for some particularly good roasts of Richard
Arnold.

>>At the premire party at which I saw the first ep Worf did not go over well
at all, largely for that reason.
>>

Thank goodness the attitudes I encountered weren't universal then.

>>What does the *Now* part have to do with it, as opposed to the TOS part? Do
you think it's anything more than loyalty?

I remember a resurgance in interest when ST:TMP came out, but never really

thought of TOS as a fad.
>>

To you and me it's not. We've stuck with it long enough for it to be
considered a genuine interest. But sci-fi and fandom in general do suffer from
groupies and faddishness, and those kinds of people have been into Trek at
various times. Right now, they're not into TOS. Those who are into Trek at
all are into Enterprise and Voyager.

The people who watch and talk about TOS now are the ones who really like it,
and perhaps a few die-hard loyalists (of which I might qualify on both
grounds).

>>Another idea that came up was age. At the time it seemed to both of us that
the most slavering TNG fans dismissed TOS fans as a bunch of geezers simply
because they weren't old enough to have really had to scrounge for their Trek
fix during the "dry years" before TNG and its spin-offs hit.
>>

I must have gotten out of the mainstream before they came along. When TNG
first premiered, it was a hit despite itself, just because it was called Trek.
As anim8r has said, if it had been called Battlestar Galactica: The Next
Generation, it wouldn't have survived the first season. People watched it even
though it was no good just out of loyalty to TOS. Eventually it survived long
enough to become a good show in its own right. And then came people who became
interested in it for itself, rather than because of TOS.

But I've met relatively few of them. Trek fandom in this town became a generic
social club. I was in more than one "Trek" groups that seemed to have nothing
whatsoever to do with Trek. Or anything else, really. Just middle-aged people
chatting about everyday problems, and never watching or talking about the show
the club was supposed to be based around. So I just stopped going.

Charles Kelley

unread,

Mar 10, 2002, 7:18:24 PM3/10/02

to

Hi, all!

In article <3c8ab76...@nntp.mindspring.com>,
stiivry...@cswebmail.com (Stiiv) wrote:

Forgive me. I forgot to add statements that I enjoy the show,
and I like Jonathan Harris, indeed all the actors. And I like the
characters, too. I simply don't take it seriously because it seems
to me that it doesn't take itself too seriously.

icebear

unread,

Mar 11, 2002, 2:38:26 AM3/11/02

to

In article <20020310181800...@mb-fd.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> >>So what'd he do to earn the title of "the Goebbels of Trek"? Dish it, man!
> >>
>
> Mainly things like I've already mentioned. Professional history revisionist,
> and propagandist. I don't mean to imply he's a Nazi. Check out the
> Afterwords to Harlan Ellison's City book for some particularly good roasts of Richard
> Arnold.

Will do. When I read it it was a library copy I didn't finish in time.
Time to hit the used bookstore (oh, the horror!).

> >>At the premire party at which I saw the first ep Worf did not go over well
> at all, largely for that reason.
> >>
>
> Thank goodness the attitudes I encountered weren't universal then.

What attitudes were those?

> >>What does the *Now* part have to do with it, as opposed to the TOS part? Do
> you think it's anything more than loyalty?
>
> I remember a resurgance in interest when ST:TMP came out, but never really
> thought of TOS as a fad.
> >>
>
> To you and me it's not. We've stuck with it long enough for it to be
> considered a genuine interest. But sci-fi and fandom in general do suffer
> from groupies and faddishness, and those kinds of people have been into Trek
> at various times.

I guess I didn't know that. Aside from TOS the only scifi shows I've
ever followed for any length of time have been DS9 and B5; everything
else I know about just enough to catch the more obvious references.
(Except for Lost in Space and Red Dwarf, apparently. I'm still a bit
embarassed over my lack of knowlege there.)

> Right now, they're not into TOS. Those who are into Trek at
> all are into Enterprise and Voyager.

Go figure. Maybe it's just easier because they're still on TV -
Enterprise is a first-run and Voyager is about as hard to find as the
six o'clock news.

> The people who watch and talk about TOS now are the ones who really like it,
> and perhaps a few die-hard loyalists (of which I might qualify on both
> grounds).

So why do the other Trek show watchers try to turn us into an unfunny
joke? Not that I'm really expecting an answer to that one...

> >>Another idea that came up was age. At the time it seemed to both of us that
> the most slavering TNG fans dismissed TOS fans as a bunch of geezers simply
> because they weren't old enough to have really had to scrounge for their Trek
> fix during the "dry years" before TNG and its spin-offs hit.
> >>
>
> I must have gotten out of the mainstream before they came along. When TNG
> first premiered, it was a hit despite itself, just because it was called
> Trek. As anim8r has said, if it had been called Battlestar Galactica: The Next
> Generation, it wouldn't have survived the first season. People watched it
> even though it was no good just out of loyalty to TOS. Eventually it survived
> long enough to become a good show in its own right. And then came people who
> became interested in it for itself, rather than because of TOS.
>
> But I've met relatively few of them. Trek fandom in this town became a
> generic social club.

Now *there's* a phenomena I've never understood: the "Oh, I like all the
Trek shows" fan. The shows really don't have much in common with one
another besides the Trek label. It's like going through my top desk
drawer - you can use everything in there to write with, but there the
similarities end. Chalk, Repidograph pens, ballpoints, #2 pencils, and
crayons just don't have a lot to do with each other in appearance or
function.

Graeme

unread,

Mar 11, 2002, 11:59:28 AM3/11/02

to

>>What attitudes were those?

Well, as I say, the euphoria over the idea that Worf's inclusion meant that the
Organian prediction that the Feds and Klingons would work together was coming
true. Even then continuity was a big thing for the fen.

>>So why do the other Trek show watchers try to turn us into an unfunny joke?
Not that I'm really expecting an answer to that one...
>>

Oh, that's easy. To deflect attention from themselves. It's no good trying to
argue that there isn't a Get-a-Life crowd inside Trek fandom (and fandom in
general). If you can't deny that it exists, the next best thing is to point
the finger somewhere else. With people who spend an excessive amount of time
pointing that finger, you have to wonder if they don't feel insecure
themselves.

For a perfect example, look at Dukula. He spent forever pointing that finger
at everyone in general, his evidence being that people actually talked about
Star Trek in a Star Trek newsgroup. I mean how flimsy can you get? And then,
surprise, surprise, it comes out that he himself is wildly and uncritically
devoted to an obscure writer and goes ape-sh** if anyone disses him.

Suddenly it becomes quite clear why he had this constant bee in his bonnet
about get-a-lifers even when he wasn't encountering any actual examples of it.
All along, he was one himself.

Reminds me of a funny line from one of the Asterix books: "Imagine accusing me
when I denounced everyone else!"

>>Now *there's* a phenomena I've never understood: the "Oh, I like all the Trek
shows" fan. The shows really don't have much in common with one another besides
the Trek label.
>>

I can sort of understand that one, even though I don't really agree with it.
It's the Collector's Instinct. Same reason people don't just get baseball
cards of their favorite player and stop. You start to feel that as long as
you've started, you should really collect the whole set. And everything that
has a Trek label feels like "the whole set" to some.

In the 70's, I used to buy everything that said Trek on it, pretty much without
thinking. But then marketers started to realize that people were doing that
and put the label and any old thing. I had to stop. It was too expensive and
too hard to find everything. Nowadays Trek merchandise has to EARN a spot on
my shelf. And Trek shows have to earn a spot on my TV screen. They can get
there just by being Trek, but they can't stay there for long without earning
their keep.

Once I started playing all the Infocom computer games, I had to collect them
all. And with good reason, because they were all good to excellent. But then
I not only got their bread and butter text games, I had to find their corporate
database, their silly graphic strategy game, their lousy CGA Infocomics, and
everything else. It was a collection and I wanted to complete it. And then
when Activision started putting out graphic Zork games under the Infocom label,
I bought them because they had the Infocom label, even though they weren't REAL
Infocom games, at least they were part of the series. Their second one was
called Zork Nemesis, and for that they didn't even bother putting the Infocom
label on it. Just released it as an Activision game. And I waited a long time
to buy it, figuring it was stupid to buy it just for a label that wasn't even
there (shades of Enterprise?). I didn't particularly want to, but eventually
did (and fortunately it turned out to be an outstanding game worth buying no
matter who'd put it out).

But the point of this is that with something like Infocom games, it's on a
small enough scale that you can afford to just grab everything that's related;
products, articles, everything. But not with Trek. It's just too big. Some
people try to do it anyway and look silly. And in any case, you look silly be
being uncritically devoted. To really appreciate your subject matter, you have
to be aware of its strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, weaknesses. I have a website about Infocom games (at
http://members.aol.com/graemecree/infobugs/, though it may not mean much if you
haven't played them). And do you know what it's about? Bugs. Bloopers.
Screwups. Things that they did wrong. Mainly because so many of them are
funny.

icebear

unread,

Mar 11, 2002, 10:59:59 PM3/11/02

to

In article <20020311115928...@mb-co.aol.com>,
graem...@aol.compost (Graeme) wrote:

> >>What attitudes were those?
>
> Well, as I say, the euphoria over the idea that Worf's inclusion meant that
> the
> Organian prediction that the Feds and Klingons would work together was coming
> true. Even then continuity was a big thing for the fen.

I have to wonder how soon those who saw that as an example of continuity
stuck with the show before the disillusionment set in...

> >>So why do the other Trek show watchers try to turn us into an unfunny joke?
> Not that I'm really expecting an answer to that one...
> >>
>
> Oh, that's easy. To deflect attention from themselves. It's no good trying
> to
> argue that there isn't a Get-a-Life crowd inside Trek fandom (and fandom in
> general). If you can't deny that it exists, the next best thing is to point
> the finger somewhere else. With people who spend an excessive amount of time
> pointing that finger, you have to wonder if they don't feel insecure
> themselves.

I think I know what you mean. But do TNG or Voyager have any more class
or credibility that TOS? Not IMO.

> For a perfect example, look at Dukula. He spent forever pointing that finger
> at everyone in general, his evidence being that people actually talked about
> Star Trek in a Star Trek newsgroup. I mean how flimsy can you get? And
> then,
> surprise, surprise, it comes out that he himself is wildly and uncritically
> devoted to an obscure writer and goes ape-sh** if anyone disses him.
>
> Suddenly it becomes quite clear why he had this constant bee in his bonnet
> about get-a-lifers even when he wasn't encountering any actual examples of
> it. All along, he was one himself.
>
> Reminds me of a funny line from one of the Asterix books: "Imagine accusing
> me when I denounced everyone else!"
>
>
> >>Now *there's* a phenomena I've never understood: the "Oh, I like all the
> Trek shows" fan. The shows really don't have much in common with one another
> besides the Trek label. >>
>
> I can sort of understand that one, even though I don't really agree with it.
> It's the Collector's Instinct. Same reason people don't just get baseball
> cards of their favorite player and stop. You start to feel that as long as
> you've started, you should really collect the whole set. And everything that
> has a Trek label feels like "the whole set" to some.
>
> In the 70's, I used to buy everything that said Trek on it, pretty much
> without thinking.

I was only that way with the books, but that was until what, 1990(?)
when TPTB really tightened the muzzle on the authors. Even before then
it was a real crapshoot - some of the books were fantastic, while others
were, well, crap. But it was still inexpensive, as Trek merch went.

> But then marketers started to realize that people were doing that
> and put the label and any old thing. I had to stop. It was too expensive
> and
> too hard to find everything. Nowadays Trek merchandise has to EARN a spot on
> my shelf. And Trek shows have to earn a spot on my TV screen. They can get
> there just by being Trek,

Same here - until the Enterprise publicity machine went into full swing.

> but they can't stay there for long without earning
> their keep.
>
> Once I started playing all the Infocom computer games, I had to collect them
> all. And with good reason, because they were all good to excellent. But

> thenI not only got their bread and butter text games, I had to find their

> corporate
> database, their silly graphic strategy game, their lousy CGA Infocomics, and
> everything else. It was a collection and I wanted to complete it. And then
> when Activision started putting out graphic Zork games under the Infocom
> label, I bought them because they had the Infocom label, even though they weren't
> REAL
> Infocom games, at least they were part of the series. Their second one was
> called Zork Nemesis, and for that they didn't even bother putting the Infocom
> label on it. Just released it as an Activision game. And I waited a long
> time
> to buy it, figuring it was stupid to buy it just for a label that wasn't even
> there (shades of Enterprise?). I didn't particularly want to, but eventually
> did (and fortunately it turned out to be an outstanding game worth buying no
> matter who'd put it out).
>
> But the point of this is that with something like Infocom games, it's on a
> small enough scale that you can afford to just grab everything that's
> related;
> products, articles, everything. But not with Trek. It's just too big. Some
> people try to do it anyway and look silly. And in any case, you look silly
> be
> being uncritically devoted. To really appreciate your subject matter, you
> have to be aware of its strengths and weaknesses.

And therein lies the difference between fans and the authentic
get-a-life cases.

> Yes, weaknesses. I have a website about Infocom games (at
> http://members.aol.com/graemecree/infobugs/, though it may not mean much if
> you
> haven't played them). And do you know what it's about? Bugs. Bloopers.
> Screwups. Things that they did wrong. Mainly because so many of them are
> funny.

I went to see your web site. Most of the Infocom parts I didn't get,
though it'd probably mean more if I played computer games. (I was so bad
at Space Invaders that I never went back.)
The "Bob & Ray Overstocked Surplus Warehouse" was a lot of fun,
though. I've enjoyed Bob and Ray and Tom Lehrer for years. I had the
good fortune to take a class from Lehrer. He's way cool. And you know
what? I even know what pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
means. This worries me. :-)

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,

Mar 19, 2002, 10:43:14 AM3/19/02

to

<< He (Jonathan Harris) is one of the best actors ever to grace TV. Dr.
Smith was a brilliant creation, especially considering the goofy turn
the show took. HE WAS THE ONLY REASON TO WATCH. >>

As 12 year olds we hated hated hated Smith and wanted West to kick him out the
airlock . . .

Stiiv

unread,

Mar 19, 2002, 10:30:31 PM3/19/02

to

On 19 Mar 2002 15:43:14 GMT, anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk)
wrote:

>As 12 year olds we hated hated hated Smith and wanted West to kick him out the
>airlock . . .

You KNOW it! But it's a measure of Harris' skill that he engendered
such hatred & loathing.

Ohh, the pain, the pain......
Stiiv

http://www.stiiv.com

Graeme

unread,

Mar 19, 2002, 11:05:18 PM3/19/02

to

>>As 12 year olds we hated hated hated Smith and wanted West to kick him out
the airlock . . .
>>

Oh yeah, I remember that. Major West was really cool when I was a kid.

Greg Sinclair

unread,

Mar 23, 2002, 3:45:28 PM3/23/02

to

sorry to just barge in here... i don't have too many clear recollections of
the lost in space tv series. but i used to buy the comic books from time to
time... the ship was cool (and different from the tv show, i think.)

there was one issue of the comic where they went to a planet with really low
gravity, and there were all these really fragile giants... it was neat. as
an eight year old, it made me think. (possibly the last time i ever did.)
((kidding! i still like to think from time to time.))