(Also available from Starland mirror site)
I'm typing frantically this morning! First, some comments from previous columns . . .
Bob Pauly, Honolulu HI: The original NCC1701 was the FAA registration number assigned to Matt Jeffries private plane. He liked the sound of it, and so applied it to the Enterprise when he designed it ("The Making of Ster Trek", "The Art of Star Trek"). Later, Franz Joseph postulated that "NCC" was representitive of "Naval Construction Contract" ("The Star Trek Technical Manual"). To my knowledge, there's been nothing mentioned in any of the series or movies to explain what "NCC" stood for.
Mike Wyzard: I've never downloaded a copy of it myself, but I've seen standard midi files of the Inner Light flute song posted in Trek newsgroups. It's probably on a few of the many Trek web pages, too.
Amy Alexander of Mechanicsville, VA: This is in response Joseph Burke who asked about sheet music for "The Inner Light" in your 4/25/97 column. There is sheet music to this song. I have it. It is titled "Star Trek- The Inner Light" by Jay Chattaway. It is published by the Hal Leonard Coporation. Their address is 7777 W. Bluemound Rd. PO Box 13819 Milwauke, WI 53213. I hope this helps.
Miki Marciniak: There was a copy of the music available from Jenson Publications titled Inner Light. I could not find a listing for it in this years catalog, but that does not mean it isn't still available. There is a national distributor called JW Pepper who's phone number is 1-800-345-6296. They would know if it is still available and be able to order it. It might also be possible to just order the score and not have to pay for the whole arrangement.
The piece however, was an arrangement for marching band and to say the least the song is not well suited for a marching band.
Kevin Weiler: The "Inner Light" sheet music is available from the Hal Leonard Corporation. Its code is HL00294018. Its only $3.95.
Phil: Thanks as well to Eddie Marshall for sending along information.
Seth Oppenheim: Regarding the insignia used by the Enterprise crew in the original series (and which was adopted for future shows as the combadge) which does indeed predate trek, its suposedly a theoretical astrononical drawing which states that speeds can be attained faster than light. This was the discussion in a Star Trek novel called "Federation" (escapist reading) and was something I saw on the blackboard in my astronomy class. While I'm not postive that this is true, I'll E-mail my professor to find out for sure. I'm sure your resident astrophysicst Mitzi Adams (hope I got the name right) will also know.
Phil: Well I was going to talk with mitzi about that but time got away from me this week. Maybe I'll get a chance this next week. I need an excuse to call her anyway!
Shane Tourtellotte: I listened to Mahler's 1st, spurred on by [Brian's] revelation. It definitely is there, but a little more complex than it sounds at first. The background strings come straight from NextGen, while the first two notes of the theme are identical to Classic Trek, including the instrument that plays them. (Same key as both themes, incidentally.) The mix of recognizable aspects of the two is truly eerie for those few seconds(and is repeated several times in the first movement). Between this and his 7th symphony, I'm almost afraid to listen to any more of his music. Okay, not really.
Phil: I too picked up the CD set this week and the opening is similar but--like plots--there are only so many tunes in the world!
Josh Truax of Platteville, WI: I went to last summer's 30th Anniversary Star Trek convention in Minneapolis, featuring (among others) Kate Mulgrew. At one point Mulgrew spied a little girl in the audience wearing a costume from the holo-novel (I forget whether it was the costume worn by the girl in the novel, or a miniature version of Janeway's costume). When the girl said she liked the holo-novel, Mulgrew sadly informed her that the creators had decided to discontinue the holo-novel story arc. It seems they didn't want to give girls the impression that a woman in Janeway's position would be reduced to looking in the holodeck or some other fantasy setting for romance. (In other words, I wryly mused at the time, they didn't want Janeway to have Geordi LaForge syndrome! See "Booby Trap" [TNG] if you don't know what I'm talking about...)
Todd Felton: There IS [a reference to Chekov being an admiral]! STIV: doesn't Kirk ask Chekov his name and rank after Bones has operated on him in the hospital? His answer was something like, "Chekov, Pavel. Rank: Admiral (big grin)". Okay okay, it's not exactly what Chris Gervais was looking for, but there is a reference right there to 'Admiral' Chekov! :)
Phil: So there is! ;-)
Clay Johnson: I agree with your comment in your most recent column about why DS9's technology is not as advanced as on Voyager. Technically it would violate Starfleet law to give current technology to a non federation world. Once when the Romulans asked the crew of the Enterprise D for a computer they gave them one from 30 years before so they wouldn't be giving them a current one. I can't remember the episode but it involved a conversation between Worf and Riker.
Phil: The episode was "The Next Phase" I believe!
Josh Truax of Platteville, WI: Sorry, but the explanation about DS9 using Cardassian technology misses the point. You see, even the Starfleet transporters (on the runabouts and on the Defiant) use the old TNG transporter effect, whereas Voyager uses a different effect, Generations another different effect, and First Contact yet another! That's *four* different Starfleet transporter effects in the same time frame. What's up with that?
Phil: How true, how true! Maybe O'Brien hasn't gotten around to installing the upgrade?!
Corey Hines: This is a question to your answer of last week. I asked why Starfleet equipment wasn't upgraded. I can see the station's shouldn't be upgraded but what about the ships. One would think with the Dominion threat that they would need to be as advanced as possible. Also just curious, what is the unoffical reason?
Phil: Beats me what the unofficial reason is. Seems like it would be easier for the visual effects guys to use the same thing but maybe it's all computerized so it doesn't matter!
[thomasm]: the star stations have been improved and not all the ones that were around after ST III have survied countless battles with the Klingons. Also some of the stations are orbiting alien planets. With possibly larger (maybe not more powerfull, but larger) ships.
[thomasm]: Tom Riker did not recieve this because he has not had the experience that will has had, the trauma would play a part and he would be a different person from the man who became Lieutenant Commander.
Phil: Um . . . Wil Riker got the protomotion to Lieutenant Commander right after the rescue mission so I still maintain that Tom should have gotten that promotion. Now, I don't think that Tom should have automatically been promoted to a "full three pip" Commander as he was when he became first office for the Enterprise.
David Johnston: Upon watching that pilot with a new, more modern feminist perspective... [Number One] IS kind of boring.
***** Note from Phil: Glenn St-Germain and i had a interesting dicussion over this issue. It's a little tough to reproduce since email discussions can respond point to point to point but I'll give this a try.
Glenn St-Germain: You have to remember that Dr. Janice Lester was delusionally insane. She may have told Kirk that "Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women", but it may be a simple case of her not being suitable for the job, and she blames it on her gender rather than her lack of competence.
Also [the lore that the objection to Number One was because of her gender,] I would suggest that the book "Inside Star Trek" by Robert Justman and Herb Solow be considered "required reading" for any Star Trek fan. Justman was the series associate producer in the early days, graduating to co-producer in the later years (translation: more money, better title, same job); Solow was the Desilu exec in charge of television production. Together the two recently wrote a book on their experiences with the original series, particulary the early years, with a lot of the focus of the book being on the technical problems they had to overcome.
Anyway, Solow and Justman suggest that one bit of Star Trek lore which has been considered true these past 30 years, isn't. Solow insists that NBC's objection to Number One in "The Cage" was *not* based on the idea of having a woman as second in command. What they objected to, in fact, was the actress in that role. Majel Barrett tested badly with test audiences and NBC executives, who felt that she was bland and with little audience appeal. In fact, in the regular series, after Nurse Chapel made her first appearance, Desilu's contact at NBC asked of Solow, about Barrett, "What's she doing there? I thought we got rid of her?", then later, "Tell me, who's keeping her?" When the NBC executive (eventually) learned of Barrett's relationship with Roddenberry, he replied that he suspected something like that. All of this is discussed in Solow and Justman's book.
Given that Number One and Nurse Chapel are both about as appealing as wallpaper paste, I'm inclined to agree with Herb Solow on this one. Now, if Barbara Bain had been cast as Number One, we'd likely have had a different series... (She's the only TV actress of that era I can think of. In fact, consider that Martin Landau turned down the role of Spock before Leonard Nimoy got it. So imagine this: Landau accepts the role, Bain gets the spot as Number One, and the series sells its first try -- but Jeffrey Hunter still leaves after the pilot. Peter Graves is brought in as the new captain... meanwhile, Desilu's other TV series is a spy show with William Shatner as Mister Phelps and Leonard Nimoy as the team's disguise artist...) :-D
I responded: Concerning the objection to "Number One" being based on the actress and not the gender, the information that I related may be lore but apparently it's lore that Roddenberry himself believed!! When "The Cage" was broadcast on national television, it was preceeded and followed by an interview with Roddenberry. (Can't remember when the date was one this!) I *distinctly* remember Roddenberry making the comments that I reproduced in my column--that Number One was rejected because of her gender (Now I realize that Roddenberry was in love with the woman and likely was making an excuse for her but the fact is The Great Bird himself said it!) This sounds like it's going to be a case where different people remember the events different ways! (And this happens *a lot* with human recollection!)
I still maintain that given the cultural setting, Lester's statement that Kirk's world of starship captains doesn't admit women was only interpreted *one* way by the audiences that heard it in the late 1960s. I don't think there's any question that when audiences heard it, they came to the immediate conclusion that there were no human female captains in Starfleet!
Now . . . thirty years later, we might want to suppose that what Lester said was not what it sounded like--we might want to think that the writers so deeply understood her character that they knew Lester would inflate her inability to lead to an excuse that would encompass all females and therefore absolve her of the repsonsibility of her ineptitude. But frankly, I don't think *that* much thought went into the statement when the writers penned it! I think it "was what was" and our attempts to make it something different spring only from our discomfort with admitting what Trek reflected about the state of our thirty years ago!
Glenn responded: It may be the lore which Roddenberry himself believed, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. As the Desilu exec in charge of tv production, Herb Solow was in contact with NBC a lot more than The Great Bird himself. Solow and Justman's book should be required reading for any hard-core Trek fan -- if you have a section for book reviews done by Nitpickers, I'd gladly send you the one I did several months ago.
I am not one of those who accepts Gene's word for it just because it was He who said it. Gene said a lot of things which weren't true. For instance, in his later years he was telling people he was the head writer on the series "Have Gun, Will Travel" -- the show, in fact, had no such position, Gene merely wrote a lot of scripts for it.
Nevertheless, Gene has his story, but Solow and Justman have theirs -- and the latter sounds more credible.
[Concerning the cultural setting of the statement] Remember that we as nitpickers can't pay attention to those sorts of things... :)
[Concerning the reevaulation of the statement after thirty years,] Still, with any literature, any literarty form, people re-interpret it after time passes... which is what we're doing. :)
I responded: [In regard to nitpickers not paying attention to the culture setting] Um . . . I think you're mixing forms! The whole point of the sidebar "Boys In the Hall" was to examine the reflection that Trek gave on the culture of the 1960s versus the culture of the 1990. In this regard, the sidebar was more of a literary critique as opposed to a exercise in nitpicking. Therefore, the inclusion of the attitudes of the general populous in the late 1960s is *crucial* to the understanding of the dialogue.
If you want to debate what Lester's words meant in a nitpicking context of the mythical world of the 23rd century then we really can't even talk about Solow, Justman, Delisu or Roddenberry and the only items we can cite are things that come from the show. Even in that regard I still maintain that the simplest explanation for Lester's line is that there are no human female captains. (Kirk reacts like the statement is true.) However, since we are dealing with a mythical world, you can believe what ever you want about the line--whatever is comfortable for you to believe.
On the other hand, if you want to analyze that the episode meant in terms of a reflection of the prevalent culture in the 1960s (and if you happened to be alive during that time period), then the comments of Solow, Justman, Desilu etc. become important. Again, we are dealing with a matter of interpretation and as I have said it could very well be that Roddenberry refused to face a truth about Majel Barret because he was in a relationship with her. Nonetheless, I *still* maintain that Turnabout Intruder *meant* something very specific in terms of the role of women in leadership positions when it was viewed in the late 1960s.
A final postscript: I often use my wife as a sounding board for this stuff. So, I strolled upstairs a few days ago and ask her what her impression of the statement was even if Lester was wacko. She immediately responded that she thought it meant there were no female captains in Starfleet. As did my daughter! Maybe I've completely missed some subtlety here but I do struggle with any other interpretation for the statement, "Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women."
On to the questions . . . .
Scott Padulsky: I was wondering how is the web site going to handle the X-Philes guide? Right now the site is really focused on Star Trek (with a few other sci-fi movies thrown in). Will you set up a separate section for X-Files fans or will they just jump in and join the party (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).
Phil: My inclination is to let things take their natural course. I've found that trying to predict fan response it very difficult so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens!
Matt Nelson: Here's another question about guest appearances (thanks to all those who answered my earlier ones about the Borg)... Have the writers of DS9 declared "hands off" on Q, also? I'm really disappointed if they did... I think Q should be given another chance on DS9 (I wasn't impressed with the first one.)
Phil: Couldn't say! Anybody? (My impression from "Q-Less" was that Q wasn't a very good fit for DS9. Maybe it just wasn't the right show but there's something about Q and a spaceship . . . )
Mike Konczewski of Havertown, PA: I'm wondering if I missed something on Star Trek:DS9. A recent episode, who's title escapes, had Odo in bed with a mysterious woman. They are discussing his previous romantic encounters, and he tells her about "The Joinging." He then demonstrates it; i.e., his hand goes all gooey and starts to merge with the humanoid. But I thought the Founders took away Odo's ability to change shape. Did I miss an episode? Please help!
Phil: I missed the episode myself but Odo got his powers back in "The Begotten". (I catch it in the reruns!)
Gareth Wilson: Reading through the nitpicks of the modern Trek shows, I've noticed that "accidental" nits, for example when people appear and disappear between frames, or bits of sound equipment show up on the screen, are almost extinct. Have the creators really improved since TNG? This leads to a disturbing thought. Maybe in 10 years time the Trek series will be so well made there'll be nothing to nitpick!
Phil: Gareth, Gareth . . . be thou not afraid! As long as humans are imperfect, they are going to make mistake and there will be nitpicking! ;-)
Rob van Hulst: I was watching a satirical programme on Brititsh TV last night, and in it they have something they call "The odd one out"; they show 4 photo's of people, and 3 have something in common, and 1 has not. Last night one of the 4 people they showed was Bill Shatner, and he was "The odd one out" (of course), because the other three people had a heartvalve from a pig implanted, and Bill hadn't because he was a vegan.
Do you know if this is true, and if so, I'm trying to remember if he ever ate meat or other animal products in a Star Trek production.The only thing i can come up with is that he was frying eggs in Generations, and vegans do not want to have anything to do with any animal products, so that COULD be a nit.Of course you could say that Shatner is a vegan, and Kirk is not, but these people are usually very "orthodox" about that sort of thing, so they also wouldn't do it if they were playing a role.
Phil: It's tough to tell. The Hollywood people can pretty much make anything look like anything on screen. So, even if it looked like meat, it might not be and that would probably satisfy Shatner. (Given that actors spending their live pretending, why should it bother a vegetarian actor to pretend that he's eating meat?) From what I remember of Classic Trek, however, they mostly ate those colored cubes and celery!
Robin Cook: Here is a question: Can O'Brien take command of the Defiant or the station in the absence of senior personnel?
Phil: The chain of command has always been something of a mystery went it comes to Trek. The real military has very clear lines of authority but it's never really been delineated in Trek. If the Defiant is run like a Naval vessel, O'Brien would have to be a line officer to take command.
Marian Perera: The last DS9 episode I saw was called 'Ferengi Love Songs' but on the Star Trek web page (www.startrek.msn.com) it was 'Of Love and Profit'. What gives? I can understand the Voyager change from 'Symbiogenesis' to 'Tuvix', but both DS9 titles are equally clear and comprehensible. So why the change?
Phil: There be mysteries in Trek, matey!
Brian Lombard: In the recent DS9 episode "Ties Of Blood And Water", Sisko is shocked at the presence of a Vorta accompanying Gul Dukat, because he says he saw this particular Vorta die. This guy looks familiar, but I just can't place it. Who was he, and what episode was he in? In the DS9 where Sisko, Odo, Dax, and Garak experience the events of seven years past, the Cardassians were wearing their modern day uniforms. Shouldn't they have been wearing what we saw in the TNG episode "The Wounded"? That episode took place after the events in this DS9 story.
Phil: I believe the Vorta guy was Weyoun from the fourth season episode "To The Death." And concerning the Cardassian old-style uniform . . . Yes! I think they should have worn those. Especially those goofy-looking head-cap things (Snort, chuckle.)
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: What do the blinds on the back of Ferengi's necks signify and why doesn't Quark wear one?
Phil: This question comes up periodically and I've never heard a good answer!
Jeff Frederick: I have a question maybe someone can offer insight on. In Generations, we see the saucer section go to full impulse several seconds before the warp core breach and is knocked all over the place by the warp core breach, right? Did anyone esle pick up on the series premiere of DS9? Sisko climbs in the escape pod and BARELY gets clear of his ship before its warp core breaches. They hardly experience a bumpy ride out of it. And this is with the Borg ship shooting everything in sight. What gives?
Phil: Well . . . it's like this . . . the writers wanted the Enterprise to crash so it crashed. The writers wanted Sisko and company to get away without a scratch, so they did! This leads to the truism, "When going through life, always make sure you have a good writer!"
Note from Phil: The following isn't really a question but I found it interesting and thought you might too!
Rob Reed of Novi, MI: When they filmed "Tribble-ations" they used a new model of the original Enterprise. Some people commented that it didn't look the same as the original, but one poster [to the Trials and Tribble-ations Brash Reflection] replied that he'd seen the original in NASM and they do match. Both statements are true. The Enterprise model used in the show closely matches the original Enterprise model in the NASM AS IT APPEARS TODAY, which is significantly different from how it appeared during the filming of the original series. The original, 11 1/2', Enterprise model had a smooth saucer section (no conenctric circle panel lines) and revolving nacelle endcaps with muti-colored blinking christmass lights visible through the partially opaque surface. After the show was cancelled the original model kicked around for awhile before it was donate to the Smithsonian. The model had suffered various kinds of damage and the endcaps were missing or damaged beyond repair. Sometime before the model was put on display it was restored inacurrately. Whoever did the restoration was unable to match the "Blinky light" effect of the original end cap nacelles and evidently based some of the restoration on the Franz Joseph blueprints. These blueprints show concentric circles on the saucer which never existed on the original model, until AFTER it was "restored." So, when the model makers of the new Enterprise for Tribble-ations based the new model on the old model, they incorporated the mistakes of the original restorers.
This can be supported by viewing clear copies of the original episodes or by looking at production stills. In addition a book called "Modeling famous spaceship of fact and fantasy" talks about the original TV Enterprise in detail.
Sorry I was so verbose describing this "Nit", but is was one of the things I was really dissapointed in in that episode and I'm surprised no other die-hard classsic trek fans have pointed it out or known the story behind the restoration.
[thomasm]: On the bridge of the Enterprise-D, how many PD (pocket doors) are there I believe that there are 6 some people think there are only 5.
Phil: Let's see. Ready Room, Observation Lounge, two normal turbolifts, emergency turbolist and crew head. I'd say that makes six!
Robert Beeler of Knoxville TN: Does Voyager still adhere to the replicator rations? If so, why do they engage in holodeck activities (doesn't it use much of the same technology as replicatorsonly on a higher scale)?
Phil: According to the second episode, "Parallax," the holodeck system on Voyager uses a completely separate energy system and that it not compatible with the rest of the ship. Hmmm.
Frank Diaz: In the opening sequence of Voyager, how is it possible the in a vacuum, the ship can cause a fore and aft wake? I think Voyager's opening sequence is one of the most beautiful ever done.
Phil: Seems like a problem to me! Swirling eddies require some kind of medium in which the eddy forms! In space, one would expect the particles to deflect and continue on in a straight line.
Shane Cathcart of Sydney, Australia: I'm sure that this is obvious to you guys in the USA, but what is closed captioning. It is referred to serveral times in the Nitpickers guide for DS9, but we Aussies (at least this Aussie) has never heard of it. Now to fully appreciate this fine volume, please supply me with knowledge.
Phil: Sorry! Cross-cultural glitch! In England it's called sub-titles. Maybe, it's called that in Australia? Every television now manufactured in the US has an option called closed captioning. It allows the viewer to read the dialogue at the bottom of the screen. (It's actually for the hearing-impared but it's kind of fun!)
Have a great weekend, everybody!
If you would like to submit a question or comment, send it to: chief@nitcentral.com with "Question" in the Subject line. (Remember the legalese: Everything you submit becomes mine and you grant me the right to use your name in any future publication by me.)
Copyright 1997 by Phil Farrand. All rights reserved.