(Also available from Starland mirror site)
Quick column today! I'm leaving for Cape Girardeau, MO, in a few hours to guest a convention and I have some stuff to do before I go! First, some comments from previous columns . . .
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: This doesn't have to do with Star Trek. The back of the video for "Pulp Fiction" the show Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, John Travolta and Bruce Willis. In the movie Jackson sports a Afro-like hair do. on the back his hair looks the same as his real hair does.
Robert Cook of Anacortes, WA: Re: Corey Hines' comment about "Newfies": If Mr. Hines was making a joke, I apologize for my obtuseness, but I'm pretty sure the quote is actually "If you brought a Newfian to Earth.." And I seem to recall that the name of the species in question was at least *pronounced* "Nuvian"..
Phil: No time to look it up for sure this morning but I'll check on it sometime this week. Now that Robert mentions it, I recall it as something like "Nuvian" as well!
Phil: I got in touch with Larry Nemecek this week and he says that the Defiant motto is "All I ask is a tall ship . . ."
John Myers: I am surprised that nobody has E-Mailed you with the length. I was going to but my copy of the Official Star Trek Fact Files was unavailable to me that night, and since there are plenty of UK Nitpickers I thought you'd have got plenty of detailed answers.
Voyager is 1130 feet. It may be 1113 though, the Fact File quoted a length of 11 130 feet(!) so I have assumed that they typed the initial 1 twice rather than adding a 0 on the end.
Phil: Larry Nemecek confirms that it's 1,130 ft.--or 344 meters--long according to the in-house writers guide. That makes is a little over half the length of the Enterprise-D.
Sean Corcoran: According to the "Star Trek: Voyager" Writers' Technical Manual, written by Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, the Voyager is 344 meters long, compared to the 289 meters of the original Enterprise, and the 642 meters of the Enterprise-D. It is also 15 decks thick, making it 3 decks thinner than the E-D's saucer section.
Nathan Kibelbek: In response to the person wondering why Spock and Sarek are called by their last names--I believe that a TNG episode (Unification, perhaps) contains a line in which Perrin, Sarek's wife, says that after years of practice, she can pronounce Sarek's _family_ name. So I believe that Vulcans are one of those civilizations (like the Bajorans) that puts the family name first.
I'm not absolutely sure that that's what Perrin says, but even so, it seems a plausible explanation for why Spock and Sarek's last names are different.
Phil: I'll look this up this week as well!
Ed Watson of Downingtown, PA: The TOS episode in question (I don't know the name - the flowers spray the spores on you and you get *really* happy) doesn't indicate whether it's Spock's first or last name, just that it's unpronouncable. The "cutie of the week" (glossary term?) said "You never told me if you have *another* name." It's then that Spock said "You couldn't pronounce it."
I beleive "Spock" to be his first name, which would explain why everyone, including his father called him that.
Phil: I believe that episode is called "This Side of Paradise."
Simon de Vet: As much as this seems to be a great mystery, it is not. The TNG companion states that the Dali Lama and some monks were visiting the States, and went to see an episode of TNG. Why? They're all big star trek fans. :) Hope this helps!
Phil: Okay so does that mean if, say, Billy Graham and an entourage visited the Star Trek studios, they would appear on a video slip cover as well? ;-) And, how about sports stars or news anchors? Maybe Trek could even start a practice of *selling* appearances on the video slip covers. For $10,000, you could pretend that you were in the episode of your choice! ;-)
Sean Corcoran: According to early TOS episodes, the core of the Enterprise's warp drive was *lithium* crystals, not dilithium. This was changed several episodes later because the producers were afraid that the natural physical properties of the element lithium would not make it a likely substance to be used in that matter. But I figure, since the current trend in VOY and DS9 is "Who [cares] about the laws of physics?" we might as well assume that Cochrane used lithium crystals in the Phoenix.
Ronan Mitchell: Michael Piller wrote the "Best of Both Worlds" (or at least part two), I always thought that the Borg were based on the idea of religous cults? Take, for example, the hive mind, one leader (the Borg Queen), loss of individuality, assimilating others into the collective..
Phil: I'm back at my files this week and it's true that Pillar wrote both episodes of "The Best of Both Worlds". However, Maurice Hurley wrote "Q Who" (and "The Neutral Zone" by the way--which I contend is the first appearance of the Borg) so he would be the guy to ask!
Shane Cathcart: Your comments about the Borg being related to Christians got me thinking but I think the guy who wrote it was very off base. He left out a few important facts, being that Christians (I hope) do not force people into their religion, and also, God has given us free will in our lives whether to obey His laws or not.
Phil: True, but I think that you have to consider the viewpoint of someone who is disgruntled with Christianity. Unfortunately, it does seem at least within the realm of possibility that such a person would be bitter enough to recharacterize Christians in an unfavorable light. Hollywood certainly has taken this approach in the past! However, as I said last week with regards to the Borg as a metaphor for Christianity, only the writers know for sure!
Matthew Chase Maxwell of San Francisco, CA: Regarding Matthias Roth's question in the 18 July Ask the Chief: The new biography of the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Finest Crew In the Fleet" by Adam Shrager, does not list "Word Up" as one of LeVar Burton's movie credits.
Todd Felton of Victoria, BC: There is a site, to which I also regularly contribute, which maintains a listing of every acting role ever done by anyone who has acted in any incarnation of Star Trek. It can be found at www.cris.com/~Carman, and is called the "Star Trek Actors Other Roles FAQ". I did look up LeVar Burton, and 'Word Up' is not listed in neither television nor movies.
It is a great site, too, seeing what else our beloved actors have been in! (For instance, did you know Jonathan Frakes was in an episode of "Dukes of Hazzard"?)
Joshua Truax: Regarding the question about the version of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan with all the additional footage and dialogue (about Preston being Scotty's nephew, etc.): As far as I know, that version is available only to TV stations and networks, and is not for sale on video, meaning that if you want it you'll have to do what I did: wait until a local TV station (or a cable network like USA) shows it, and set your VCR to record it! (I have heard rumors of a fan campaign to make the extended version available for sale on video, but I don't know the specifics...)
Tom Elmore of Columbia SC: From what I have seen on the internet and in magazines, the "creators" on DS9 considered the character a "liability" to Worf's character/pressence on DS9 (although Sisko having Jake on the station has been anything but a liability in my mind.) So they have been trying to "pretend' as much as possible that Alexander did not exisist, just as they have pretended Worf and Troi did not have "a thing" for each other. However, since Worf is getting married, and Star Trek fans are known for long memories, "the creators" have boxed themselves into a corner. Thus they are reportedly going to have Alexander appear on an episode of DS9 next season either in an episode to appear before Worf's and Dax's wedding and/or the wedding episode itself. No word on exactly when or if that will be nor who will play Alexander. If I may hazzard a guess, I would say Alexander's appearence and/or the wedding will probably be in the sweeps period of February or May of 1998.
Phil: Sounds like a plan to me! Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the creators had Alexander say something about how fortunate his is to be living on Earth or how much he loves living with his grandparents or going to that Klingon academy. This is when we should start to snicker!
Shane Cathcart: I read in review that Brian Bonsall became less frequent in TNG because his parents felt it was becoming too much like a regular series and would be permanently moulded into that role, and so encouraged him to broaden his horizons.
Also, TPTB say that they are not going to use Alexander because there is no suitable storyline. Why can't Worf live it up while he has been dishonoured anyway. Most of his "Honoured" life has been spent raising Alexander whats-his-name.
(By the way, I agree with you about the Comments on Alexander's absence. I was kidding around in the response bit.)
Alexander Shearer: FASA is far from defunct! The only thing they no longer do is licensed games - Paramount generally wants way too much money and control for most game designer's tastes (they most recently did a number of Decipher, maker of the Startrek CCG). Nothing done by FASA is canonical...in fact, Paramount was unhappy with the amount of new stuff FASA wrote (there really wasn't enough to support a game without some invention, since the RPG existed largely prior to TNG). The last ST products from FASA were two TNG books (actually, only one might have been released...I'm a couple hundred miles from my old FASA catalogs, so I can't check).
For more on FASA, check out http://www.fasa.com/#anchor151330. They are very much an active game company, with Battletech (any MW2 players out there?), Shadowrun, and Earthdawn. They used to have licenses for Star Trek, Dr. Who, The Last Starfighter, and He-Man (no, really!).
Sean Corcoran: "Mr. Scott's (Faux) Guide to the Enterprise" (Jason Barnes' question): The main problem with this guide is that it wasn't directly based on the series, and wasn't made by people associated with the series, like the Tech Manual and the Encyclopedias, etc. These people just sat down one day and made up a bunch of stuff to make a little extra money off of a rather popular sci-fi movie. The same goes for "The Planets of the Federation," published in the late 80s/early 90s, probably by the same company. (This book's canonicity is debatable, though. Some of the illustrations from this book have shown up on a schoolroom display in DS9.)
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: A similar problem to this is the warp engines of Voyager. "Force of Nature" said that warp fields are harmful to space. Yet Voyager has no problem going faster than warp 5. So either Janeway doesn't care about the space in the Delta Quadrant, or they made warp travel safe. "Star Trek Chronology" states that "they obviously succeeded in developing a new design or a modification to existing designs by the time the Voyager was launched in 2371." How is this obvious. Does any dialogue say warp engines are better?
Phil: As far as I know there is no dialogue to state that the warp drive on the Voyager doesn't harm space! However, it is true that the unofficial word is that the movement of the Voyager engines has something to do with this advance. I really have to way to prove but I suspicion that this is a case of turf wars. For some reason, there seems to be some form of lack of communication between the art department and the writing staff at the Star Trek offices. It's an old problem. Take, for instance, the holodeck on the Enterprise-D, for instance. The Technical Manual contains a perfectly reasonable explanation for how the holodeck works. Unfortunately, there are episodes like "Elementary, Dear Data" and "Ship In A Bottle" that seem to offer another explanation. Also--it is my understanding--that Rick Sternbach originally designed the Voyager with only one shuttlebay, hearkening back to the design of the original Enterprise. Unfortunately, the writers didn't seem to know this so they kept refering to Shuttlebay 2. (Yes, there is a place on the upper side of the saucer that looks like it might be a shuttlebay but from what I understand--originally--it wasn't.) So, what's going on here? Only the insiders know for sure but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that there's a bit of friction between the art department and the writing staff. With respect then to the quote from the Chronology, the improvement to Voyager's warp drive is "obvious" because the authors, Michael and Denise Okuda, work in the art department and the art department designed the Voyager and in their minds the warp drive system on the Voyager is superior and doesn't harm space! Now if we could only get the writing staff to put that little tidbit into a piece of dialogue some where . . .
On to the questions . . .
Scott Wasilewski: Have we ever heard the Bajoran name for Deep Space 9? The Cardassian name was Terek Nor, and the Starfleet name is DS9, but what do the Bajorans call it? I understand why they'd call it by the Cardassian name when the C's were there - probably tortured if they didn't. But what about the resistance? What did they call it? I can't see them calling it the Cardassian name. And what did they call it between the end of the occupation and the Starfleet prescence? I can't see them calling it "That big thing up in orbit that we used to mine stuff in".
Phil: As far as I know, we've never heard the Bajoran name for the station but I agree that the Bajorans would probably name it something other that Deep Space Nine or Terok Nor. There is precedent for this on Earth. Many, many countries renamed themselves when they regained their independence.
Matthew McLauchlin: The following is a very glib explaining away of all "irrational time" problems, as in Parallax, Time and Again, Visionary, et. al. We know from Parallels (TNG) that whenever a choice is made, an alternate universe emerges wherein that choice was not made. Therefore, if any of these irrational time problems emerges, it means that they were not travelling in the same universe, but in a different one! Try this:
In The City on the Edge of Forever (hereinafter referred to as CEF), the Guardian of Forever sent our heroes back to New York in the primary universe (U1). The prevention of Edith Keeler's death caused the removal of the Federation from the timeline of U1, so the Enterprise ceased to exist. When Edith Keeler died (as normal), the Federation reentered U1's timeline and the Enterprise returned.
In Time and Again, what happened was that unlike CEF, our heroes did not return everything to normal as it would have happened in U1. Their actions in U1 (Janeway & Paris sent back in time, rescue attempt causes planet to go foom) caused the initial situation (planet has recently gone foom). However, when Janeway foils the rescue attempt, that creates an alternate universe (U2, if you will) in which the planet didn't go foom because the rescue attempt never took place because the planet didn't go foom. When the rescue attempt was foiled, our POV shifts to U2, where the planet kept going and Voyager took no notice of it. All subsequent episodes of DS9 and Voy have taken place in U2. Of course, no one notices the difference.
Now for a more complicated example: Yesterday's Enterprise. When the
Ent-C departs Narendra III in U1, it never intervened in that battle and
so we have U3 in which the Federation/Klingon detente never occurred,
Yar is still alive, and the Ent-D meets the Ent-C. When the Ent-C picks
up Yar and returns home, it returns to U1 - or rather to a modified
version which I shall call U1' (you-one-prime; sounds like one of those
robots from Star Wars). In this version, Yar is serving aboard the
Ent-C, the lives of that ship's crew are spared when she agrees to
consort with a Romulan officer, Sela is born, etc. Other than that,
though, U1' is identical to U1. All subsequent episodes of TNG, DS9, and
Voy take place in U1' and no-one knows the difference (except Guinan...
but that's okay because she has that funky El Aurian spider sense
Virtually any timeline problem can be explained using Parallels-vintage
alternate universe theory as described above. Why am I going to all this
trouble to help TPTB? "Once in a while, declare peace".
Phil: I absolutely agree that everything can be explained away with parallel universes. But, I do think that parallel universes cause a story-telling problem. For one thing, parallel universes severely cheapen the character's personal choices. For instance, in "Yesterday's Enterprise," if there are an infinite number of universes then in a gazillion of those universes Yar will return with the Enterprise-C and in a gazillion she won't! So . . . who cares whether she does or doesn't? Even if she dies, there will always be a spare!
Chris Ng: In 'All Good Things...' the 'D' (I call all the Enterprises by their
designation letters, AKA the 'A') hits an eruption of time and antitime. This should cause some problems.
For instance, if there's antitime in the area, shouldn't time stand still? I mean, if you're going five kph against a five kph current, you stand still! And, if not standing still, time should slow down, or maybe even go BACKWARDS! (Patrick Stewart would quit anyway if they made him do everything backwards! "Egagne!") You might say that the time inside the anomaly would neutralize the
antitime. Sure, fine, okeydokey. But what about when the Enterprises go
inside the anomaly? Time should stop, or go backwards, or at least slow down! Weird. Really weird.
Phil: Only the writers know for sure!
Jim Coyle: Is there a revised version of Marc Okrand's _Klingon Dictionary_? I'm
tryin to find the Klingon equivalent of the word "teacher" and it doesn't
seem to be represented in any form in the original dictionary. How's your
conversational Klingon?
Phil: I am "out of the loop" when it comes to Klingon! But . . . anybody else know the answer to this?
Harvey H. Kitzman, Jr.: [In regards to "By Inferno's Light,"] are the Khitomer (sp?) accords official now? Are the Feds and Klingons allies again? I was confused because I
didn't know if Sisko had the authority to reinstate it without the approval
of the Fed Council (not that I think they would have opposed).
Phil: I'd have to recheck the tape and I'm running late this morning! I'll do it this next week sometime!
Angela Wilson-McGrath of Cheyenne, WY: What's the deal with the Borg? Captain Picard was FULLY assimilated
(right?) and then turned back into himself completely. Then why can't
this always be done? I'm thinking of the new addition to the Voyager
crew. It'll be new/different to have a Borg aboard, like having the
first Klingon aboard times ten, but why will she still be a
disconnected Borg and not transformed back to her original human self?
For that matter why wasn't Hugh turned back, or any of the other
non-threatening still-but-formerly Borg?
Phil: What this all comes down to ultimately--and somewhat disconcertingly--is the writers do to the characters what the writers want to do to the characters! It will be interesting if the creators add in some explaination why Seven Of Nine still has attachments. This is when we should start to snicker.
Have a great weekend, everybody! If you happen to be in the Cape Girardeau area this weekend, drop by and say hello!
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.