(Also available from Starland mirror site)
First, an announcement! No Ask the Chief next week. Taking a break for Christmas. Next, some comments from previous columns . . .
Glenn St-Germain of Edmonton AB: I'd like to point out that the ST Encyclopedia's nomenclature matches the current US Navy's. "Commodore" is an older term, possibly British in origin, which has fallen into disuse. The rank was functionally equivalent to a "Rear Admiral", ie; an admiral with a single star (or pip). One explanation I heard was that an officer of that rank was called "Commodore" if his assignment was on land, and "Rear Admiral" if at sea. (Or was it the other way around?) In any case, they just say "Admiral" now (though "Rear Admiral" is still heard sometimes).
Given the above, Kirk's rank in the earlier ST films may well have been equivalent to that of Commodore Decker in "The Doomsday Machine". Later, Kirk went straight from Captain to Admiral because there was nothing in between. Noting that in ST-IV he was demoted two grades back down to Captain suggests that Kirk had earned a second "star" by that time -- the movie insigniae did not seem to differentiate between the different levels of "Admiral" other than giving the Fleet Admiral a six-pointed starburst insignia instead of a four-pointed one. (Notice they haven't used the term "Commodore" in recent Star Trek?)
(A parallel example: the term "Brigadier" used to be used for an army general with a single star. Now they just call him "General".)
Michael W. Atwell: Just to clear up this whole Commodore vs. Admiral issue, Star Trek mirrors the ranking system of the U.S. Navy. Until the early 1970's, there was a rank of Commodore right above Captain. They wore one star, while Rear Admirals wore two stars. The one star's resented not being called Admirals, so the two ranks were changed to Rear Admiral (Lower Half) and Rear Admiral (Upper Half). In my opinion, this sound a lot dumber than Commodore.
Glenn St-Germain of Edmonton AB: Two ideas I'd like to toss into the forum for new series:
1. A series set before TOS, before The Cage even, with Captain Robert April aboard the USS Enterprise when it was still brand new. One of the ST novels was set in that era, and it has possibilities... though it'd never get seriously considered.
2. More seriously, a series focusing on Star Fleet Intelligence. The regular cast would be an elite cadre of intelligence agents who would be sent on a special mission every week... sort of a "Mission: Impossible" format set in the current ST universe.
I also like the ideas being suggested about having a series in which the Feds have lost the war with the Dominion, and the rebellion is under way...
Scott McClenney: I think that if there is a fifth series of Star Trek that it should be totally different from the other four. I'd perfer one that would be similiar to Earth2 in that it would deal with a small group of colonists on a newly settled planet. Having a show about another starship and its crew I feel would make it seem that that is all there is to the Federation. On the other hand having a show dealing with the every day lives of ordinary people who are trying to settle a new frontier would be interesting to say the least. Also you could do more by developing how they relate with the native population. After all have you ever wondered what happens to all those people once the Federation has left them on the planet? As far as main characters I see them as being a eclectic bunch. First there would be the main character who would be someone who is a loner kind of like Clint Eastwood in Pale Rider sort of thing. He or she would be leaving behind a very dark past behind, maybe a former Maquis or smuggler. Next would be someone who is very strongly religious. He or she would be the medical expert and would have a very high regard for life which would at times come into conflict with the other colonists especially when they first come into contact with the native population. Third would be the leader of the native population. He or she would be the one alien who would be present during the entire series and we would see how the colonists and natives relate through their eyes. Of course none of the chartacters would be perfect, they would have different prejudices and act very human(the colonists that is). Of course I am probably in the minority wanting a series about settlers on a new planet. However I think it would be easier to produce as like a western you could use the same sets over and over again and not worry abour coming up with a new alien world each week. Another idea of course would be having a group of seven main characters going around after the Dominion as taken over fighting the Dominion at every possible step. The ship they use could be called the Liberator and the leader could be called Blake: Hey,wait a minute the BBC DID this show already (except the bad guys were called the Federation not the Dominion) it was called BLAKE'S7!!:) Well back to the drawing board on that one!
Brian Webber: I haven't heard anything about this, but I'm writing one for it. Basically it takes place before the Enterprise was ever built. Before Captain Kirk was born. I'm writing in a Bab 5 style. All four seasons at once. It's set on the Essex (See Power Play) Bryce Shumar who was the captain in Power Play, will only be an XO until season four when the captain dies. There will be three helmsmen over the four years, and the doctor from The Cage will appear in the first three seasons as a kid fresh out of med school. At the end of the two-hour finale, the Essex crashes (duh). Do you think Berman'll buy it?
Phil: Unfortunately . . . no.
Jonathan Klein of Bowling Green, OH: Several people have had musings on what the next series of Star Trek may be. I may have an answer. I was at a Star Trek convention a few months ago. George Takei was present. He said that Paramount is half-seriously considering doing the Adventures of Captain Sulu. George said he'd be willing to do the show. In addition, he is lobbying that if it does happen, he wants a certain Russian as his first officer. He said he had spoken with Walter Koenig about the project, and Walter was agreeable as well. He concluded with "providing that our health holds out, I don't see a problem with the idea." So we can all hope, at least, to see a few old freinds in the next show.
Phil: I've heard Takei talk about this as well. When I heard him discuss it a few years ago, I got the impression that it was more wishful thinking on his part. Who knows? The idea may have grown more intriguing to the Trek creators in recent years!
Omer Belsky: Murray Leeder said that Sisko said that Aris was a Founder but he was wrong. Well this must be a first! till now I thought then whenever TREK heroes dicide that Einstain was wrong, or that you can`t enter the Nexos with a ship even if everyone gets in to the nexos with a ship, or that Androids can`t uses contractions when they can use contructions - they are ALWAYS right :-)
My point wasn`t that there is no way to explain what`s happening on the show, because there usually is(and if there isn`t, well that`s where nitpickers get in, isn`t it?), but that the creators didn`t know what they were doing when they started (unlike B5, and to sum degree X-Files) but kind of making it up as they go along.
Second, I don`t remember when, but there was a question about TREK references in the X-files. well, you forgot the first season episode `E.B.E` - in that episode there is a UFO party, and Mulder goes over and does the volcan hand thing(I don`t really know how to call it. i usually refer to it as `Spock`s secret hand shake`).
Phil: Have to check that out!
Stephen Mendenhall: I'd just like to add to the requests for a James Bond nitpickers' guide! It would be interesting. Don't forget to include the Woody Allen one! Thanks.
Phil: Let see . . . I think that's about five down and 19,995 to go! (See my comments last week.)
Josh Truax of Platteville, WI: Chief... In your December 12 column, I saw that my suggestion for a James Bond 007 Nitpicker's Guide has received some positive responses. (Thank you, everyone!) Since a 007 Guide is far from a done deal at this point, however, I thought I might give you a brief sample of some of my favorite nits (and a few doppelgangers) from the 007 movies:
"Goldfinger": In one of the series' more memorable executions, Odd Job shoots a man riding in the back of his car, then takes the car to a junkyard and has it crushed into a cube, with the man's body supposedly still inside. Or is it? Just before the car is crushed, the camera shows the car from an angle at which one can see the back seat inside -- but the poor guy's body isn't there anymore!
"Moonraker": I realize that this movie was made at a time when Hollywood was still recovering from "Star Wars", but... space shuttles carrying astronaut soldiers armed with laser guns? In a movie presumably set in the late 1970s, no less???
This movie revisits an issue lively debated following the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Deadlock". Many people wondered whether Ensign Kim's body shouldn't have exploded when he was blown through a hull breach into the vacuum of space, although other, more knowledgeable people later explained that his body should have remained intact after all. Well, near the end of "Moonraker", Bond kills the arch-villain Drax by ejecting him into space, and guess what: Drax's body doesn't explode either! Unfortunately, we can't put this issue to bed just yet, because a similar event occurs in "Licence to Kill" with completely different results! (See below.)
"The Living Daylights": John Rhys-Davies (Voyager's Leo da Vinci) plays Gen. Pushkin in this movie...
"Licence to Kill": At one point, the drug lord Sanchez offs one of his cronies by throwing him into a hyperbaric chamber, turning the air pressure inside the chamber way up, then severing its air tube with a hatchet. The resulting rapid drop in air pressure causes the guy's head (and presumably the rest of his body as well) to inflate like a balloon and explode. But wait: Didn't I just get done saying that your body *won't* explode under these circumstances, and that neither "Moonraker"'s Drax nor Voyager's Harry Kim exploded even when tossed into hard vacuum? In any case, even with its air tube severed, the pressure inside the chamber would not have dropped to zero (i.e. vacuum); it would merely have equalized with the ambient barometric pressure outside the chamber. So how come this guy exploded while Drax and Kim didn't?
"Goldeneye": Famke Janssens ("The Perfect Mate" [TNG]) plays Xenia Onotopp in this movie. (Note from Phil: Woof, woof, woof, woof . . . sorry, sorry. ;-) Also, CIA agent Jack Wade is portrayed by Joe Don Baker, who played Jack Whitaker, one of the villains in "The Living Daylights." (A long-lost, evil twin brother, perhaps?)
Murray Leeder: Here's my biggest question about the YoH. If destroying the weaponship made history to revert to the way it was originally, what stopped Annorax from rewriting history in that timeline?
Phil: Beats me! Maybe his wife bought new lingergie?! (Note to all spouses of potentially-evil-universe-destroying-maniacs: Keep them entertained!)
Chris Marks: According to the TNG episode guide, Denise Crosby asked to leave because she felt her character wasn't developing well enough. (In the first season the same could be said for Picard, Troi, Bev Crusher, in fact everyone except Riker, Data and Wes, but that's just my opinon). She is also reported to have said that if she'd had scenes like that at the start of 'Skin Of Evil', she wouldn't have left. This is why she was happy to come back in 'Yesterdays Enterprise' and as Sela.
John Burke of Hyannis, MA: In the December 12th "Ask the Chief," there is a comment by Danny Weise about Spock's telling Saavik to pilot out of Spacedock.The comment claims the scene is (To coin a phrase) illogical because in ST6, Kirk even told Valeris to go faster out of Spacedock. Actually, that may not be a nit. In the novelization of ST6 (by J.M. Dillard, I think?), it goes into detail on that scene, stating that Kirk told Valeris to go fast as a sort of "revenge" on Spock for that Saavik incident (Sort of, "turnabout is fair play."She explains it better than I did.) In that context, both scenes make a little more sense. (And yes, I know the novels aren't cannon, but I figure movie novelizations are close enough to justify bending the Prime Directive....)
Phil: I think what we have here is an attempt by the writer of the novelization to explain away a nit. And, it's not a bad explaination. I just have serious doubts that this is what the creators had in mind when they wrote the scene.
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: First it was a 5th season finale, and if I recall, a Jem'Hadar ship was captured in an earlier 5th season episode and they could have used that to adapt their shields to withstand Dominion wepons.
Chris Pope of Vandalia, Ohio: With regard to real-life transporters, here is a front-page article that appeared in the Dayton Daily News on Thursday (12/11):
**************************
(from Wire Services): TELEPORTATION TAKES BABY STEP
Science in Austria has taken a step toward the fantastic images of science fiction.
Researchers there have duplicated, in a rudimentary way, the operation of the transporter on the starship Enterprise.
In the first demonstration of "quantum teleportation," scientists destroyed bits of light called photons in one place and made perfect copies appear about three feet away.
Researchers said the technique eventually could lead to ultra-fast computers, but probably won't bring a revolutionary form of transportation.
While teleportation of atoms may be possible in a few years and molecules within a decade or so, use of the process on living things remains a very remote prospect, experts said.
Theoretically, they said, it should be possible to gather information about every tiny particle that makes up a human body, transfer that information to other particles and create a perfect replica.
But, apart from the huge expense, said Benjamin Schumacher of Kenyon College, there's another small problem: Teleportation will "kill you and take you apart atom by atom."
**************************************
Actually, according to the Tech Manual, Star Trek's transporters work a little differently. As I read it, the person's particles are converted into a matter stream and are actually sent to the transport site and reassembled. Still, even with the real-life process, since you rematerialize as a PERFECT copy of your pre-transported self, whether you are "killed" in the process or not becomes a technicality. You wouldn't even know unless somebody told you. (And in that sense, Picard is dead, since his matter stream was never recovered in "Lonely Among Us." But he doesn't seem to mind.)
Phil: Thanks to Jason Liu and Trevor Ruppe for sending this information along as well. I read some articles that actually led off with the allusion to Star Trek when, in fact, as Chris has pointed out what the scientist have done is not really the same thing as the transporter. Of course, the same articles then retracted the allusion later on. Not good if you're just skimming articles!
John Latchem: To correct myself: The Photon transportation happened in Austria, not England.
Phil: No problem!
Matthias Roth: An answer:
"Photons Faster Than Light"
(Follow-up to John Latchem's question from 97/12/12)
In the last few years were conducted some experiments in which electromagnetic waves moved with speeds more than the velocity of light. The scientists used laser or microwaves. A detailed dicsussion can be found at http://lal.cs.byu.edu/ketav/issue_3.2/Lumin/lumin.html . (Even the Klingons are there involved...)
Professor Nimtz of Cologne, Germany even modulated his microwaves with Mozart's 40th Symphony. This signal travelled at 4.7 times the speed of light. http://www.rrz.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/ph2/n/grni.e.html (in English)
All European Nitpickers with access to the Astra satellite television can watch this experiments! Every wednesday night on transponder 45 (Bayerisches Fernsehen - in German language...) during the "Spacenight" (www.spacenight.de for further information - also in German).
Phil: Um . . . not sure what to say about this!
On to the questions . . .
Edward J.: Is there going to be a new Original ST Nit book? There are 2 for TNG, why only one for TOS?
Phil: It's all about sales! The Classic book did fine but it would take a lot of time and effort to do a volume II and I have to choose my projects carefully.
Simon de Vet: Was reading this week's ATC coloumn, and the mention of the CD-ROM version of the encyclopedia, and I had an idea. How about, some time in the future, a version of the Nit guides on CD-ROM. It could include much more than the books, with search, etc. And finally a place to include everything, not just what would fit. I realize that this is pretty much the content of your great website, but after all, many people do not have internet access still. I'm sure it could be quite a good seller, seeing how anything trek sells like mad, especially software :) Just a brief idea... (if it goes through I want 20% of the T-shirt sales :)
Phil: This is one of those back burner project that I've thought about for a while. Even have a name for it: The Nitpicayune Uber-Opus Omnibus for Trek. Big project. Waiting for the right time!
Jason Liu: While we're on the subject of different Guide ideas...how about ER? You know that has a fan base, and there are tons of nits there. Just an idea...
Phil: Not sure how that would sell.
Dan Wiese, El Cajon: Does it bother you that while seperated the Enterprise-D battle section does not have an upper or lower sensor platform, it is totaly blind on top and on bottom; I don't know about you but if I was in a battle I'd want to see all around me.
Phil: No doubt there's some automagic sensor recalibration thingy that accounts for this! Or, gasp, the creators just never thought of it! ;-)
Al Fix: Concerning Dan Wiese's question about window in the roof of Worf's and Geordi's rooms. It seems that most of the windows featured [on the Enterprise-D] have appeared to be of an elongated, sloping style. This would be a natural consequence of having rooms defined by the rounded, sloping saucer section. However, are there no rooms on the lower half of the saucer? We should've seen windows sloping to the floor at some point! Unless they've compensated by inverting the gravity matrix so that those rooms are "upside-down", and therefore the windows are at the "top"?
Phil: Yup! I noticed that too. Of course, the real reason is that the creators only had one "personnel quarters" set that they just kept redressing. Then again, we're nitpickers and we don't deal in reality!
Jonathan Carter: I have a question about the fundamentals of the Star Trek universe. Basically, when someone is transported, a pattern of them is copied, sent to a new location, and then person's pattern is reassembled. One could argue that every time Picard (or anyone else) transports, he dies and an exact double appears somewhere else who just has all of his memories. There's really no way to prove the 'realness' of someone who has transported or to prove that the original person dies, but shouldn't most people in Star Trek be really wary of transporters? Think about it: you'd be dead and some double would be running around living your life! Or are you both equally real? Maybe I'm just thinking too three-dimensionally. That darn three-dimensional thinking! How are we supposed to think, anyway?
Phil: Well, since we are creatures of our environment I would suggest to you that it probably is beyond our capability to ever truly comprehend that which is beyond our existence. In the case of proving the "realness" of someone who is transported, I think philosophy would pretty much conclude that you really can't "prove" the "realness" of anything. You can only assume that the input you receive from your senses and the processing that it receives in your mind represents an approximation of "actuality." So from that sense, the problem of "realness" is much more fundamental!
Lee Thalbourne: I have a little thing on Stardates. In many episodes, they have a "Supplemental" Log before an actual Stardate log. This I have found out from Brannon Braga on the 'Net is because sometimes the Log goes a few seconds too long. An easy trick they use is to replace the Stardates with "Supplemental". This is not a nit but an indication that you should put 1st time logs referring to "Supplemental Stardates" under Conitnuity and production errors
Phil: Of course, to do so would be to imply that we have inside knowledge about the workings of the Trek writing staff and since nitpickers don't deal in reality . . . ;-)
Robert Beeler of Knoxville, TN: On your webpage you mentioned something about ideas for potential new guides and I was thinking about a guide for horror movies - I grew up picking apart Friday 13th and those. Sometimes me and my friends would get together and call out the body count ("EIGHTEEN, NINETEEN!"). How about one for movies that just don't try too hard, a guide to the Ed Wood films could be interesting.
Phil: I'd love to do a B-movie Guide and really have some fun with it. Unfortunately, unless publisher are told continuously that something would be popular they are a bit hesitant to try it!
Mike Deeds: Do you think the Next Generation movies will ever have Riker promoted to Captain? After all, Classic Trek had to promote Spock (and later Sulu). I think the last time this issue was dealt with was way back in "Best of Both Worlds". For the sake of realism, I think Riker would have to get promoted.
Phil: Have no idea! That's up to the creators.
Matthias Roth: What exactly is the famous "Cardassian Neck Trick"? I think it's the same thing a cobra does when attacking. And the Cardassians sure have a little bit of a snake...
Phil: My impression is that this term has always been applied to Odo and I assumed that it was describing Odo shape-shifting his neck to look Cardassian but who knows for sure!
Wells P. Martin: Chief, now I ask you, would YOU stick your nose up to the mouth of someone who you knew had been sleeping for 200 years, as Kirk did in Space Seed ?
Phil: Nope! ;-)
Joe McLaughlin Jr. of Medway, MA: I have been wondering about in all of the Star Trek series whenever they find a clone of someone and they have the doctor check him out, they always say "There's no sign of genetic drift." To my understanding, genetic drift is a change in the gene pool of a small population that takes place strictly by chance. Are they saying that there is no random change in his genes that would make him not a clone? If not are they counting the ship's crew as a small population? We are studying population genetics in my AP Biology class and this still doesn't make sense. Am I missing something?
Phil: What you're missing is "Up the Long Ladder." ;-) In that episode, Pulaski stated that when ever you clone a person you get genetic drift and so the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy eventually becomes unusable for more copies. This set up the plot so that Picard could mate the Bringloidi with the Mariposans. Now, however, the creators have a problem--i.e. Crusher or Pulaski should be able to tell immediately if someone is a clone because of "genetic drift." So, they add a line of dialogue to account for that whenever someone is a clone and have the doctor say there is *no* genetic drift so that the nitpickers will say, "Oh, that's why the doctor didn't know the character was a clone!" In other words, it's *our* fault! ;-)
Jason Barnes: This has been bugging me. There was a DS9 episode where at the end, Weyoun was vaporised by a Jem'Hadar leader for "Questioning his loyalty." The episode name escapes me but it's the one where some renegade Jem'Hadar had attacked the station to repair an Iconian gateway. My question is, who is this Weyoun guy running around now supposed to be? Is he a clone? I've missed a lot of DS9 episodes and I'm just puzzled. Just CAN'T be a "Skin of Evil/Symbiosis" Tasha Yar thing.
Phil: And speaking of clones . . . in the episode where Weyoun reappears, there is mention that he is a clone.
Patrick Sweeney: A couple of months ago in the Sci-Fi Channel magazine they had a big write up on TNG, and they gave an episode checklist and very quick synopsis on each one, but for the second to last episode, the one I have always known as "Preempative Strike" they call "The Good Fight". They describe the same episode, but my question is, was this an old name for the episode? I don't remember seeing it anywhere else.
Phil: If I recall correctly, "Preemptive Strike" orginally went under the working title of "The Good Fight." It was changed at the last minute.
Have a great weekend, everybody! Remember, no column next week! Merry Christmas!
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.