(Also available from Starland mirror site)
First, some comments from previous columns . . .
Robert Cook: Continuity in the Bond movies: Someone said there was continuity only in Goldeneye; this isn't entirely true. When Bond "quits" in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, he cleans out his desk, taking some momentoes of his previous adventures with him. Also, in one of Moore's outings as 007, he visits the grave of his wife, and finds himself in a final showdown with Blofeld, which ends with Blofeld being dropped down a factory smokestack from a helicopter.
Stephen Mendenhall: Okay, no story ideas, I know, but some non-fiction nitpicking books you might do... People have nitpicked the Bible before, but how about a new, modern point of view using the latest evidence from Biblical Archaeology? Nitpicker's guide to History--reviewing the inconsistencies and absurdities of the Nazis, the Crusades, etc. With explainations of how and why people were so inconsistent. This could be an interesting junior high social studies textbook. Nitpicker's Guide to Reference Books--even the Encyclopedia Britannica isn't infallible. Or maybe you're busy enough already.
I *don't* want a guide to the monster movies; I thought Godzilla was pretty boring.
Matthias Roth: The NextGenGuide2 is now available in German translation and the DS9Guide is also announced for '98.
Phil: Cool! Would you believe that I've never received my copy of the Classic Guide in German. I've got on of the NextGen Guide but the publisher didn't do what they were supposed to do and send Dell some copies of the classic one. Not that I understand German but it's fun to show around! ;-)
Anon: A rant re. your recent comments on the trekness of DS9: First, I was relived to know that I am not the only one watching Voyager (and DS9) out of responisibility in a way. I see them as good entertainment, a diverting hour of TV, but not special. There are a few reasons: 1. My frequent failure to be surprised. Often, I can say exactly which episode(s) of TNG they are copying. With DS9, I don't know when it started. They used to be good. I still think one of the most brilliant and deliciously ironic tv moments ever was the three-season mystery of Odo's origins, setting up the dominion, then AFTER THIS WAS AN ESTABLISHED THING making him part of that. Now, though...it's getting too formulaic. 2. The commercialism of TREK. I have to start by saying that I don't really know what Roddenberry would make of sex in the Jeffries tube (Voyager). And I realize that certain factors (such as the availability of certain actors or actresses) affect what they do. But I don't see why they have to kill off Dax, for example. Yes, I know, Terry Farrel wants to leave the show, but why can't they just transfer Dax? Don't people in Starfleet ever change assignments? 3. The incosistency, especially on Voyager. The captain mentions a latent love of gardening. Do we ever see her garden again? Whatever happened to Carey in engineering? (I know, they don't want to pay the actor. But still...Harry Kim is the con. officer, NOT an engineer). Note that they handle this differently on DS9 (with the exception of the whole Alexander thing). People often ask O'Brien how his wife is doing. Oh she's fine, heard from her yesterday, sends her regards. Nothing wrong with that: she's still a factor and they don't have to pay the actress. That said, I will not forgive them for what they did when Worf married. Ok, they don't want to pay Patrick Stewart to guest star, but not even a telegram or something, "they are sorry they can't make it, but Picard and the enterprise send their regards?" Nothing at all! And it would have been a nice touch when O'Brien had the baby for some mention of a note from the enterprise too. I understand financial restraints on a tv show (my father is in the business) but there are ways around it! Anyway, there's my take. What do you think?
Phil: I think there's a new caesar who's not very interested in mentioning the old caeser's properties. As far as Roddenberry's views on sex in the Jefferies tube, however, I don't think he would be bothered by it. From what I understand Roddenberry had quite an active libido!
Jonathan Carter: This should technically go under the "Far Beyond the Stars" discussion but has to do with the small B5 discussion that sprung up there.
A few people have said that an example of B5's weaknesses is how Sheridan ended the Shadow War just by giving them a stern talking-to. That's not exactly what happened. At the time that episode took place, the Shadows and Vorlons had gone to war with each other and all of the other races were in danger of being crushed underfoot. Each of the warring races wanted to watch over of the other races using their own methods, but they got in each other's way. During the final battle, Sheridan explained that the other races no longer needed or wanted the help of the Shadows and Vorlons and that they'd been fighting each other for so long that they didn't really know the reasons behind it. The Shadows and Vorlons agreed with him and left the galaxy.
I thought this ending was much better than one in which the good guys would just blow up all the bad guys. We found out that the Shadows weren't pure evil beings like we'd been led to believe and that they can suffer from the same problems that we do, especially loneliness. The war was never about killing the bad guys, we just never found out until that moment.
I realize that someone who hadn't seen B5 very much might not understand that episode, but that doesn't mean the story itself is weak.
Phil: I understand you're viewpoint. But--even though I'm a big fan of B5--I felt that the conclusion of the Shadow War was a disappointment. For three years, we had been ramped to see something big. The episodes that lead up to the "big talk" were tense and exciting. And then? And then? Blah, blah, blah. Oh, okay. See ya! As a friend said, And *nobody* on the command team died?! (Well, except Sheridan but he came back to life.) I understand what JMS was trying to do. I just think he mad an implied convenant with his veiwer's expectations for so many years and then never gave them the Big Bang! Now, as always, he's done a great job of getting a lot of stuff going again to keep us interested. And in the end, the show will no doubt be viewed as a chronicle of the coming of age of humanity. That's fine. I'm just not sure the whole transition was prepped as well as it could have been. I just thought the end of the Shadow War was *jarring*.
John Latchem: Well, looks like we've got a few full fledged debates going on here.
First, I have seen all the DS9 debate, and the wonder whether it would have survived, yada yada yada. This is an interesting question, and I'm wondering if the Star Trek name has itself been soiled. I mean, think about it. When you say "Star Trek" what comes to mind? Kirk, Picard, action, and crazy fans dressed up like Vulcans. Plus, DS9 never got any of Star Trek's spotlight. The end of TNG, the first film, and then Voyager, effectively prevented DS9 from getting any attention. Voyager got a huge push, and sucked, so people stopped watching it, and, assuming DS9 must be just as bad, gave up on Trek. Sure "First Contact" did better than average numbers but still couldn't crack the crucial $100 Million mark. So, am I saying that Voyager has been devastating to Star Trek? Maybe.
Of course, then there is the whole dichotomy within the Star Trek community which tunes out DS9 because it strays from the traditional Trek formula. AND on top of that NextGen Trek (which refers to the TNG time frame series, TNG, DS9, and VOY) is the victim of its own success. TNG revived the idea that television science fiction was viable, and also proved that first run syndication could be successful as well. So where sci-fi fans from 1987-1993 had just TNG to watch, sci-fi fans today have X-Files, Hercules, Xena, Earth Final Conflict, Babylon 5, Sliders, yada yada yada. It is a completely different market. DS9 has never gotten a fair shake, was always in an untennable position, and has been hurt because of it.
I think the only way Star Trek can grow again is to shut down all production for a while. When Voyager ends, DON'T start another show for 5 years or so. Let the TNG films, joined by some DS9 and Voyager characters, keep trek alive. Take the time to THINK AND PLAN how to proceed next. Personally, I'd unite the Alpha Quadrant at the end of DS9, and maybe do something with the Kelvins from "By Any Other Name" trying to invade the Galaxy.
So now we have this comparison of Star Trek to Star Wars through their use of formulas. I find it interesting that you mention whether or not ESB would be the same if all the main characters weren't in them. An interesting point, as all the comics that don't feature the main characters haven't sold as well, but that's another story. The question is, just what IS the Star Wars formula? Is it the main characters? Well, no. The formula would be loosely defined at best, but I'd say it involves spaceships, strong willed characters, and a battle between good and evil.
A quick aside about your 17 Jewels analogy. Even if the makers replace the jewels with quartz, how would this affect customers. The watches still tell time, don't they. Wouldn't it make more sense if the old watches were hand and face clocks, and the new watches were quartz based DIGITAL watches. The loyal customers bought them, didn't like the new style, and sales dropped. So the creators rethink everything, and make a new brand of hand and face watches, but with Quartz technology. These watches sell well at first, and the digital watches are still sold as well, but the combination of old style with new technology on the new watches doesn't quite mesh, the watches don't work very well, and customers begin to swear off 17 Jewels watches alltogether, sometimes buying up special collectors edition watches which actually use the 17 jewels technology, but these only come out every few years or so. I could say that 17 Jewels fell to the wayside because the customers were unwilling to accept the changing times and the higher quality, better brand of digital watches, but I won't, as this is only an analogy.
One point I forgot to make about some underlying problems in the DS9 format. Yes, they do ignore the Dominion and go into the Gamma Quadrant. Yes, they leave the station undefended. These are problems, I admit. Yes, there are probably complicated ways to explain them away, but I don't want to think about them right now. Some have been addressed on the show.
But wait, didn't TNG try to say, in season 4, that the Federation was fighting a war with Cardassia? Hold on a second. Why is there no mention of this in seasons 1-3? Why is the flagship of the Federation doing all these penny ante missions and not fighting? Could it be that the writer's rewrote history by creating the Cardassians in season 4? Could it be that they are ALWAYS changing Trek history to fit their whims? This isn't just a DS9 problem. It's a problem with all of Trek. The writers don't care what has already happened, or what is logical. Ron Moore said as much over the use of Scotty in Generations. They want to write good stories, usually stand alone stories. I overlook this usually if the stories are good enough, but DS9 does seem to have a bigger problem with this. Good thing I think the stories are that much better.
Oh, and one final point about DS9 and Starfleet defending it (or not defending it) during threat of war. This is the same Starfleet that has constantly left Earth undefended, remember?
Phil: Let me see if I can just sum up my feelings about DS9 and Voyager. It is true that successful entities have a tendancy to eat their own children. That's the way it is and it is that way in more than just Trek. Can you say . . . "Millennium"? Having said that, I think DS9 and Voyager have had several other strikes against them from the beginning. First, the sci-fi world changed when the creators weren't looking. With NextGen they were king of the hill. And it was a big hill and there was *nobody* that would touch them! That's a tough position to live in because you get used to being king of the hill. You get used to the fact that you can coast. And--in my humble opinion--I felt like NextGen was coasting in its later seasons.
Then the world changed. Sci-fi television got noticed and *lots* of programs started cropping up. "No problem," think the creators of NextGen, "We're great! No one can touch us. We're so great we're going to do something completely different and figure it out as we go along!"
Except, the world had changed. And you now had really agressive, smart, energetic creative types who were hungry who had a lot of survival instinct because if they didn't hit the ground running, they kne: They were dead. And all of a sudden X-Files starts gaining ground. And all of a sudden Hercules and then Xena started gaining ground. And all of a sudden B5 starts gaining ground. and for the longest time, it *seemed* like the Trek people were still dancing and singing, "We're great. We're great. We know it. You should know it too!"
I just think it's *really* tough to recover from a start like that. Just like I don't think Millennium will every recover from it's unneccessarily gory start. I've been told by many nitpickers that Millennium has really cut back on its gore and is getting really interesting. Well, I watched an episode last week and I think I just happened to watch the right one because there was *a lot* of stuff that got explained in that episode! (I recognize the "core dump" episode format from the X-Files). Maybe if Millennium had started out like that, I'd still be watching it. But, it didn't. Frankly, the first several episodes *offended* me and I doubt I'll ever return to the show. It's just the way it is. Maybe Millennium is turning into a great show. I'll never know. I will keep watching DS9 and Voyager because their Trek but . . .
Scott McClenney: To defend my comment that Michael Dorn's character may have been (and I do stress may have) Willie Mayes in Far Beyond The Stars on DS9 I give the following reasons: 1.Star Trek takes place in a parallel universe so not everything will be the same as in our own universe(for example Quayle might have gotten elected President in 1996 in the Trek universe). 2.More importantly most of FBTS takes place in Sisko's head,so if he wanted Willie Mayes to wear number 15 and be playing for the Giants in 1953,he could (I mean it is happening in his mind so whatever he feels like having happen...).
Omer Belsky, Israel: About the voyager/Ds9 argument
I read what you wrote about the subject phil, and I agreed with the most of it. It does seem as if the creaters where doing something just for their amusement. But mainly, my DS9 problem lies in two areas. Acting and the credability of the story lines.
About acting, well, evertone has his own opinion, obviously, but I can`t stand Avery Brooks. He`s so melodramatic and over-acting it`s emberassing. And for the most part, his character seems extreamly similar to that of Kirk, exept that William Shatner is a much better actor(would you believe that such a sentence is posible? William Shatner... The Better Actor :-)
But it`s mainly credability that bothers me in DS9. I don`tb know how many people have read Stephen King`s Misery, but one of the things he describes there is a children`s game. Every time one of the children is put before a secenario and has to find a why to solve it. Then the Instractor asks `Really?` and the children has to judge if the solution is believeble. Television is very much like that.
I live in Israel, and we have a somewhat tense political condition. This makes you learn more about the kind of stuff DS9 tries to potray, probably more then the averedge american needs to know.m Whenever I see something on the Show, I ask myself `Really?` and (exept in rare occasions like the truely marvellous `Duet`)the answer is `no`.
Trek always had simplified messeges and stories, bad vs good, and like vise - but it has always been in outer-space. Energy-creatures might want nothing but to boddy-jump between people like in `Lonely among us`, but people, empires do not. they have goals, complications, conflicts - which are rarely potrailed in a way I find believable in DS9.
Some of these are obvious - DS9 has a Cardassian Tailor - so he HAS to be a n ex-spy. That`s redicolous, but there it is(Don`t get me wrong Garak is one of the better things in DS9, and Andrew Robinson is a great actor, but I just don`t buy it). And when The Jemhadar - the worst enemy of the Federation since the Borg - came threw the Celestrial Tempel (the wormhole) - the fact that it had no effect on Bajorian Religion was for me absurd.
I could go on with stuff like that forever, but there is really no point to it. I can agree that doing politics and Religion is difficult, but Babylon 5 does it with a lot of succes, which is why it is a far supperior show.
Joshua Truax: Chief... My friend Lonny Johnson of Columbus, IN has another take on the "general malaise," as you described it, toward ST:DS9. (He doesn't have e-mail at home, and his e-mail server at work often does strange things to his outgoing messages, so he asked me to relay his message to you after cleaning up whatever "damage" his server does.) I'll give you his views first, then follow them up with my own:
Lonny: '...I think the real reason that many of us don't like DS9 is the way it started, and the way TNG ended. I believe TNG had many more seasons left in it. And so did many of the actors, and most of the fans, but Rick didn't seem to think so, he thought his idea was better. Well of course it wasn't and this [really upset] a lot of fans. Many went to Babylon 5, and other Sci-Fi shows. Then Rick came along with Voyager to try to get some of the true Star Trek fans back, but they really didn't fully embrace Voyager. Is this because the show isn't good? No, I feel that the show is good, but once again the fans are still mad at Rick, and then there was the availability of the show, and if you could get the show, it is usually on at a bad time, late Sunday night, hey I have to go to work the next morning. While shows like Stargate SG1 are on Friday night, and Babylon 5 are now on at a decent time, every night.
If Star Trek really wants to return to its glory, they need:
- new blood in the writing staff
- better time slots, and availability
- return to the old values (captains don't kiss/sleep/become romantic with
their 1st officers)
- DS9 needs to end
- Voyager needs to come home for at least one season before it ends
'And most importantly, after DS9, and Voyager are retired, a new fresh Star Trek show needs to be created. A show that embodies Gene's ideas and hopes for the future. The people in charge of Star Trek need to become aware that Star Trek is for the people, a vision of the future, not a money making machine.'
Josh: For the most part, I agree with what Lonny has to say. I do need to add a few things, though. First, the decision to end TNG wasn't entirely Rick Berman's call. According to a 1994 news article, Paramount originally wanted to pull TNG out of syndication after seventh season and move it over to UPN, not only to make it UPN's flagship program but to keep UPN from having to compete with Paramount's own syndicated programming on non-UPN stations. The trouble was, Paramount couldn't get out of its syndication contracts with stations carrying TNG, many of which would have run through 2001. Thus, the only way for Paramount to avoid this competition with themselves was to cancel TNG and start from scratch with Voyager as UPN's flagship. This obviously didn't sit well with Lonny and many others. As for myself, I was just happy that TNG was finally on its way to the silver screen!
But, I digress. Here's what I think should be done with DS9, and with the Star Trek franchise as a whole:
1) By the start of next season, Berman and company should decide what, if anything, they'd like to do with Deep Space Nine after it ends as a TV series. If they just want to retire it permanently, they should write next season's episodes with an eye toward tying up all the loose ends (plot threads, character issues, etc.) left in the series. If, on the other hand, they want to take DS9 to the silver screen, or (as I have suggested before) miniseries, they should leave some threads hanging, or create new ones, that could then be carried over to the movie(s) or miniseries.
2) Do not create any new series to replace DS9, at least not right away. In fact, don't create one to replace Voyager after it ends, either. Once the two current series end, the creators should give Star Trek a rest on the TV front for a few years (two at the minimum), and use the time off to begin carefully planning for a new series. If/when they do launch a fifth Trek series, they should hire as many new writers as possible for their staff, as Lonny suggested above. These things should bring new freshness and life to the Star Trek franchise.
3) As for Voyager, I'm really looking forward to seeing what Brannon Braga does for the series once he takes over as exec producer next season. Like DS9, Voyager has consistently improved over the past couple of years, but I'd like to see some more ambitious storylines for episodes. This season the Voyager writers have been "swinging for the fences" more frequently than in the past, but it's still not enough. True, they'll probably strike out a lot, but they should also hit some home runs, which is just what Voyager could use these days...
That's all I -- make that *we* -- have for now, Chief. What do you think?
Phil: I think I'm running out of time this morning!! ;-)
Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: I'll take a stab at a more detailed explanation of Mission: Impossible (the movie) for you. (Do SPOILERS still apply to a movie that's almost 2 years old?) Tom Cruise's character, Ethan Hunt, is the good guy. Jon Voight plays Jim Phelps. (Side note: Peter Graves was Jim Phelps in the TV show.) Jim Phelps turns out to be the bad guy in the movie. I'm sure this upset many a fan of the TV show.
I can understand anyone's confusion surronding the plot. There is a lot of double and triple-crossing going on. Basically, Phelps sets up Hunt to look like Hunt's betrayed the IMF and Hunt ends up a fugitive. Most of the movie is spent following Hunt trying to clear his name. However, in the end we find out that Hunt was actually setting up Phelps the whole time.
There is also a sub-plot where Hunt gathers two former IMF agents (who are also on the "disavowed list" for breaking the rules) to help him. Luther, played by Ving Rhames, and Krieger, played by Jean Reno. Krieger actually works for Phelps and tries to betray Hunt. Luther ends up being a good guy and gets his job at IMF back.
As for "no more cold war", I don't think this has any particular meaning in the movie. It's just a comment that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, there isn't as much work for spies. This is a common theme in many movies as they search for new generic bad guys (a role the Russians filled since the 60s.)
Robert Cook: Mission:Impossible: Phil, you said 'Peter Graves' was the bad guy. His *character*, Jim Phelps, was the bad guy, but Graves didn't play him. I believe the producers didn't want him for the part, and Graves didn't want to see Phelps turned into a villian in any event.
Matthew Patterson: Very nice touch! Given the number of times you commented on that (and all the planets that look like Alpha 177) in the Classic Guide, I shouldn't be surprised.
Vince Hamilton: Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't help being surprised when Rene Charbonneau said he'd never seen any of the "Star Wars" movies. He's missing some GREAT films. Even my father has seen "Star Wars", and he's not even a sci-fi fan. He sees like one movie every ten years.
Phil: Everybody gets to watch what they want to watch!
Vince Hamilton: I just read over your tentative table of contents for the "Star Wars" Guide, and couldn't help but notice that you have a LOT of reading ahead. I was wondering, are you a particularly fast reader? I know that reading this many books, comics, etc., would take me forever.
Also, to me, it looks like you'll probably have to take some time away from the "Voyager" reflections, ATC columns, and quartly newsletters. Is this a correct assumption?
Phil: I *do* have a lot of reading to do! And writing! But, I am going to attempt to keep the homepage going as well.
Jim Elek: I have a couple of quick comments. One, you mention using the Dark Horse comic book adaptations as sources for the movies. The thing is there are two sets of adaptations. One for the original releases and one for the special editions. Secondly, Dark Horse's versions of the original releases are remakes of the original Marvel adaptations. Of course, the Dark Horse versions are more available than the Marvel versions, but I wanted to make you aware of this.
Secondly, I'm not sure if the comic book adaptations have ever been considered canonical in any way. They are not mentioned in the Guide to the Star Wars Universe and they are not mentioned in that Lucasfilm quote from Star Wars Insider. Of course, this doesn't apply to your proposed comic book section, but you may want to reconsider using the comic book adaptations in the movie section.
Phil: Cool! One less thing to review! Now that I think about it, you're right! I haven't seen them on the list. Consider it deleted! ;-)
John Latchem: (Note from Phil: These comments were originally appened to the DS9 discussion but I felt like the message detoured into the Star Wars Guide topic at some point so I clipped it out and movied it down here! Sorry about mangling you email, John! ;-) That being said, I think the best of the novels have been the X-Wing books, which DON'T use the main characters, except Wedge. I also think the Bantam Han Solo books were good, as well as the first Thrawn trilogy, and Children of the Jedi. The other adult books have been average to poor. They're all the same: Leia has some crisis against a new Imperial villain, Luke has a Jedi crisis, Han is caught in the middle, and there is always some new superweapon involved. It gets dull, since none of the villains are particularly interesting. The X-Wing books feature fresh characters, good interactions, and a well developed villain. The Han Solo books are good because they focus on Han and many of the events before the films. Along with the X-Wing novels, these serve to tie together a lot of loose threads in an entertaining fashion. Children of the Jedi follows the standard main character formula, but introduces a love interest for Luke, and is overall pretty well done.
As for the level of fan interest, well, many Star Wars fans won't have read the books. They'll understand the movie nits, but will be lost as to the novels. Isn't that why you include a detailed plot synopsis? That's the main reason I'm going to buy the Star Wars guide. There is NO comprehensive guide with detailed plots of all the novels, just snips here and there. If I had time I'd put one together just for my own use. All Star Wars fans will read the movie nits. Some who have read all the books will read everything. Others will be lost, read some of the plot synopsis, and buy the source novels out of curiosity. So you sell a few books, Bantam sells a few books, Star Wars fans are happy. Everybody wins. Did I say how much I think a Star Wars guide is a great idea. Just make sure you get some good graphics for the cover.
Okay, now I see your list of the children's books and have a few questions. You list 11 Galaxy of Fear books and 12 Young Jedi books. I count 8 GoF and 11 YJ. Are you anticipating future releases? If so where are "I, Jedi" and "Vision of the Future?" (note from Phil: We *are* hoping to get some of the future releases in.)
As to the comics you think may be hard to find "Empire's End" is, I think, the most important to make sure is included, as it is the conclusion to "Dark Empire II." I dunno what you have already read, but DE2 DOESN'T END. Also I see you haven't listed the "Classic Star Wars" reprintings. Some of these are referenced in other comics, mainly Exar Kun sending the creature to the stasis chamber in "Tales of the Jedi" which explains what it was doing there in the comic strip (the fact that it looked completely different is a nit). (Note from Phil: I am more than open as to what should be included in the comics section! That section I'm floudering a bit on. I do think it needs to be restricted to the Dark Horse stuff, even if the Dark Horse stuff references the Marvel stuff.)
How did you plan on segmenting the book? Seperate sections for Movies, Novels, and comics? Personally I think you should list everything chronologically, to preserve the historical flow of the Star Wars stories (that's the historian in me talking). (Note from Phil: There will be a chonological listing of some sort. I'm still trying to figure out whether I should do the novels by released date and then organize a chonology as a side bar.)
And finally (sorry to keep hounding you with all these Star Wars questions but while I like Star Trek I am a Star Wars nut and just feel this need to try to help to shape the book like a Star Wars fan would like to see it). Of your non-canonical sources, I disagree that they aren't canonical, except for the holiday special, which Lucas has denounced. The Han books, the Lando books, and the Ewok TV movies have been referenced in the Bantam books. The Ewok TV movies were written and Exec produced by George Lucas! Splinter of the Minds eye would make the whole package complete. Of course I am speaking with the passion of a true Star Wars fan when I make these suggestions. The rational part of me understands how time contstraints might affect what goes in the book. (Note from Phil: I understand and I hope to offer some opinions on this whole canonical business when it's all said and done!)
Okay, those are all the points I wanted to make. Just want to warn you about the "Lost Children of the Jedi" books. I read these from an adult perspective, and they are terrible, featuring HUGE inconsistancies from everything else (a base on Dagobah? Han and Leia get married? A giant underground city on Yavin?) and preachy, overbearing environmental type messages. They are so obviously written for children (the authors wrote for "The Transformers" for Pete's sake) you may find yourself laughing. I did. But I'll leave it to you, Phil. You should have a field day with them.
Phil: Sounds like fun! By the way, the door bell just rang and I ran upstairs and it was the novels from Bantam. Big box! Lot-o-books. I mean . . . *LOTS-O-BOOKS!* ;-)
Philip McGachey, Scotland: I was reading this weeks column and saw your tentative contents for the Star Wars guide. I have to say that it worried me a little - I severely don't like the idea of nitpicking a book. Let me explain.
You are watching an episode of DS9, and Kira walks into shot with her com badge upside down. You quickly rattle off a smart remark about her dressing in a hurry, then move on. This seams to me to be fair game, because it is a genuine mistake made by a number of people. First, the costume director who pinned the badge on, then Visitor for not noticing it was upside down, then the camera crew, the director, the other cast members, the tea lady etc. for not noticing it.
You now sit back, happy in the knowlege of your nitpicking duties done, reading your favourite Star Wars novel. Up comes your favourite chapter - the showdown between Darth Vadar and Anakin Skywalker. But wait - This cannot be right. You print the mistake, and sell a million copies of the guide. As a result, the hard working author of the book, whose name is printed in big letters on the front, is laughed out of every room he dares show his face in where two or more Star Wars fans are gathered, never writes another book and dies a pauper in a motel room somewhere in Arkansas.
Do you get my point? In a TV series, a mistake can be 'blamed' on any one of a number of people, but in a novel, the responsibility falls on one person. This strikes me as getting a little personal, and risks breaking the directive of good humour. I know I certainly wouldn't want someone pointing out twenty-odd mistakes in a book I spent six months writing. And you never know - maybe the author was quite proud of his striking metaphor of a "starched thread glued to a glowing ocean".
Phil: Well, first of all, I doubt anyone's career will be made or broken by my little writings. Maybe if I was selling millions of books but . . . I'm not. Trust me, I'll be gentle but if an author works on a book for six months it just shouldn't have stuff like this in it: "Threepio stared, mesmerized, out the small viewport set in the front of the tiny escape pod as the hot yellow eye of Tanooine began to swallow them up." So, um, how does a "hot yellow eye" "swallow" you up? (And I say in the Star Wars Guide, "Must be one of those alien digestive-eyes!") This analogy is *distracting*. It's words for words sake and if it was in dialogue in a television show, I would point it out as well! (Unless, it was intensionally done to be funny!)
Matt Nelson: You know, I was pondering the new Star Wars guide, ( and I am SOOOO glad you went for this instead of Xena ) and a few questions popped into me noodle.
1)What's it going to be called? "The Nipickers' Guide for Star Warriors"? " Jedi Knights"? As one Wizard Magazine Star Wars fan referred to himself, "Warsies"? What the heck DO SW fans call themselves, anyway? (Note from Phil: Honestly, I don't know!)
2)Will you be comparing nits that were eliminated/created by the Special Edition tapes? For example, on the old CBS/FOX version of ROTJ, Oola flashes the audience briefly when her halter tops slips, but in the newer tapes and the Special Edition, the scene is cut. (Note from Phil: It'll be in there!)
3)How are you going to find all those old comic series?!? That's going to cost some $$$; how do you get recompensated for that! Anyway, best of luck! I'm looking forward to seeing this Guide, even though all I've seen is the movies!
Phil: As far as the comic books go, I will probably only do stuff that is commecially available at a reasonable cost. All the comic books that I listed as certain enclosures are available from amazon.com.
Matthew Patterson: What are you going to do about the extra footage in the Special Editions of the Star Wars movies? I can think of at least one nit that was in the Special Edition of ROTJ that wasn't in the regular version. In the big Ewok celebration at the end of the film, they changed the music that was originally used from something that sounds like it belongs on "Sesame Street" to a flute piece. But they kept in one scene of an Ewok drumming on captured stormtrooper helmets. You can't hear the drums in the Special Edition, and they wouldn't fit with the new music anyway.
Phil: I *will* comment! ;-)
Trevor Ruppe: I couldn't help but laugh when I read the 3-13-98 Ask the Chief column. In reply to a question about whether you would nitpick spelling errors in the STAR WARS novels, you said "Probably won't do much on spelling mistake [sic]. Not very intereting [sic] to read." Were you being intentionally funny, or unintentionally funny? Just curious...
Phil: Just flying through this stuff trying to get it dun! ;-)
John Latchem: Guess I must be obsessed cuz the questions keep on coming to me. . .
Have you thought of a name for the book? I ask because the other books titles refer to the fans of the series (Nitpicker's Guide for Trekkers, X-Philes), but Star Wars doesn't really have a name for its fans (Warries? Warriors? Jedis? LAME), probably because it doesn't lend itself to a catchy name like that. Not that I'm looking for a catchy name, mind you, I prefer the term Star Wars Fan to some stereotypical label such as "Trekkie." But anyway I'm just curious. "Nitpicker's Guide for Star Wars Fans" or just the plain simple "Nitpicker's Guide for Star Wars."
Any ideas as to sidebars? Maybe something as to Vader's rank in the Empire. And of course I expect to see a triathalon trivia on planets. What else did you have in mind?
Phil: Haven't even thought about sidebars yet! As for title, I really have no idea. It will *not* be called The Nitpicker's Guide for Star Warriors if I have anything to say about it! But i'm not sure what the trademark laws have to say about this that and the other if it's called The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Wars. I am open to suggestions! In fact, if any of you can come up with the winning title, I'll send you a free autographed copy of the book and mention your name in the Acknowledgements! How 'bout that?
(SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER)
Chris Marks: As for Dax, Terry Farrell has said she wants Jadzia killed off. I'm just wondering whether this is due to her not liking the package for the seventh season, and deciding that she dosn't want to work for Paramount again. (If Jadzia's dead, she can't come back for cameos, unless they use the mirror universe Dax, or do Yesterdays DS9, or......). Sorry, got sidetracked there.
Then again, I thought Terry'd signed up for season seven. Then again,again, it could just all be puplicity to make the veiwers think they're going to kill Dax off, and bump up veiwing figures towards the end of the season. (Remember the hiatus between episodes of Best Of Both Worlds? The rumours were flying about Patrick Stewarts contract negociations failing, and whether Picard would die, Riker would get command, and Shelby would stay as first officer.)
Rodney Hrvatin, South Australia, Australia: Someone suggested that changing Dax would be difficult and Sci-Fi fans wouldn't accept it. Take Dr. Who. What a concept- when the time lords are seriously hurt or their current regeneration gets too old they rejuvenate into a new body and new personality. I like this idea as did the sci-fi fans when it happened. it allowed the principle actor on the show to leave without the show falling to pieces. I see no reason why this would be different in this case.
Phil: I don't either!
Callie Sullivan: I don't see how they can bring in a new character to take on the Dax symbiont. Wasn't there an episode that said that, once the symbiont relocates to a new body, that person isn't allowed contact with anyone who had a romantic relationship with the former host? So even if the new host was female, I don't think she'd be allowed any contact with Worf, consequently she'd not be allowed near DS9.
(On the other hand, the final season of DS9 could go all-out for laughs by having a love-struck new male host chasing Worf round the station ...)
Brian Straight, Shawnee, KS.: The answer to this lies in the fact that we know little about life in the 24th century at this point in the Trek universe, as our medium of learning it is limited.( I would love a series centered around a family, and their day-today life on 24th century Earth).
The Enterprise-D (many people on the Trek message boards here on AOL have dupped it the "Hilton" for obvious reasons) was built for famalies. Hint, the wood-grain, soft corrdirs, and luxury animites (sp?). Plus the Ent-D was an explorer/research vessel (for the most part) so it would be expected that famalies/civilans would be allowed on it (the ship would never be place in any real danger).
Voyager, has a different feel than the Hilton.. er Ent-D. Voyager is more of a warship or specail missions ship. We can assume this because it has a "mess hall" rather than a luxury lounge. As well, I bleieve when Voyager left to get the Maquis from the badlands, it had just been launched and probably everyone assigned to serve/live on board hadn't been picked up yet.
The Ent-E, we don't know alot about, but I would imagine there would be mention of the poor assimilated famalies by someone during the course of FC. And, again, with an growing Dominion threat, and judging by the newer starships it would seem Starfleet has finaly decided they can't live in this galaxy without some ships that can fight! So they started designing more militaristic ships with the gun-metal gray corrdors, few luxuries, and designed to protect the Federation. So I would guess the Enterprise-E is more of a warship or battleship than it is an explorer. (i'm sure once the war is over with it'll become the explorer we all want it to be). So again, no famalies, for obvious reasons.
DS9, a space station (like you didn't know) probably acts as a military base, and the famalies of the crew serving on it are welcomed, and are aware of the risk.
Robert J. Woolley: The only one I can think of is Flatliners, where Julia Roberts gets zapped repeatedly. *With* her bra on, which--trust me on this--just doesn't happen in the world of real medicine. Oh, and by the way, defibrillating a flatline heart is *routine* in this movie. (The basic plot is that these med studnets discover that they can have wild hallucinations if they get their hearts to stop, then their friends zap them back to life just in time. Really, really stupid flick.)
Ron Saarna of Toronto, Ontario: Regarding the last question on defibraltors on women. Wasn't there one used on Elizabeth Mastrioni (SP?) in the movie The Abyss, after she lets herself drown because there was only one aqualung, only to be revived later when reaching the station?
Phil: Thanks to Jared Showalter, Chris Marks and Matt Cotnoir for sending this information along as well.
Callie Sullivan: In reply to Chad at the end of last week's column - "The Abyss" featured a defib used on a woman ... but as defibs must be used on bare skin, I suspect that Chad's only asking so that he can leer at a woman's bare chest, and I don't think such people should be particularly welcome on your website. Surprised you didn't spot that one, Phil. (I know, I know, you were busy ... but always trust a woman to spot a weirdo!)
Phil: My, oh my, oh my. How the unfounded accusations fly in our society! Chad simply asked a question. Shall we condemn him, string him up and brand a giant "W" on his chest because he *might* have some alterior motive? Is this what we've come to?! Whatever I think you might be thinking is what you are thinking so I think I have a right to act on my supposition of your motive?! And does this mean that to insure the coherence and safety of our society, we should require that all judgements in this world fall under the purview of women's intuition?! ;-) *I* run the discussions around here. *I* chose to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves otherwise! ;-) If Chad had asked me to direct him to any great porno flicks that I might know of, his question would have never made it to the column and I would have told him that I was unable to supply him that information because I don't have access to it because I don't watch prono! And, even *if* Chad has an interest in seeing bare-chested women, as long as he keeps his comments in that regard to himself and the rest of his comments within the boundaries of what I consider good taste, he's welcome! (And, just an aside, if the natural affection that Chad feels for the feminine form makes him a wierdo, then about 98% of men fall in that category! Speaking for men, in general, I can say with some certainty that we are *wired* for it and it's one of the things that makes the world go round and it sells *a lot* of products. In fact, one could make the claim that at this stage in our development as a nation, sexual attraction is *the* basis for our economy. That is not to say, however, that men should not excersize some control over their natural inclinations. I've always believed that true living is about the discipline of rising above the level of animalistic behavoir. And now that I've opened *that* can of worms, it's time to move on . . . ;-)
On to the questions, I am way, way behind this morning! . . .
Robert J. Woolley: I missed "Random Thoughts" on original broadcast, and just caught it this week on re-run. In the Brash Reflections file, there was an interesting comment [about Seven walking to Janeway's quarters].
I hadn't thought about this before, but I've never seen anybody in any Trek series have a literally "open-door" policy. Now, when I'm at work, I like to keep my office door open most of the time so that people *do* know they can walk in and talk to me. I do'nt like the isolated feeling that a closed door conveys to both me and my co-workers.
So here's the question: have we ever seen evidence in any Trek episode (any series) that there is an option for ordering the computer to just leave one's door open?
Phil: I can't recall ever seeing an office door open but Crusher didn't even *have* a door on her office and La Forge didn't even have walls! (As far as we've seen on the episode.) One problem with an "no-knock" setting on the pocket doors is: How do you know? With the speed at which characters approach those door, if they aren't set to open automatically, won't the characters go splat?
Ryan Whitney of Evanston, IL: The ST:TNG episode "Encounter at Farpoint Station" was originally a 2 hour movie. Subsequently, it was split into 2 parts for reruns, and some scenes which appeared in the original 2 hour format were cut out for the 2 part format. These scenes are referred to in the TNG Nitpickers' Guides.
My question is: When the following 2 hour ST episodes were split into 2 parts for reruns, were any scenes cut out to make room for the "Last time on Star Trek..." at the beginning of part 2, and if so, which scenes?
STV #1,2 - "Caretaker"
ST:DS9 #73,74 - "The Way of the Warrior"
ST:TNG #177,178 - "All Good Things..."
Additionally, why is the ST (OS) episode "The Menagerie" referred to as a single episode, despite being originally aired as a 2 part episode? Both parts are officially referred to as one episode (Prod. #16) entitled, "The Menagerie". Why not "The Menagerie, Part I" (Prod #16), and "The Menagerie, Part II" (Prod #17)? I know that the episode incorporates much of the footage from "The Cage", which was one episode, but "The Menagerie" is not just an edited down version of that episode.
Phil: Marketing "The Menagerie" as one episode was a decision made by the creators. Who can say what the logic was. As for the other episode, I don't have the time to get you a list. I was going to include the information on "All Good Things . . ." in the NextGen II but we ran far over on pages and I never did the comparison.
Joanna Cravit: What happened to Ensign Wildman's baby on Voyager? I think there was something on that during the ice storm, so I missed it...
Phil: Actually, you didn't! There was nothing to miss. The little gal is around somewhere but nobody knows where at this point!
Murray Leeder: So exactly how many copies of a book must be sold in order for it to be considered a worthwhile endeavour by the publisher?
Phil: It all depends on the publisher. So of the smaller one *do* publish just because they feel a given book needs to be published. In most case though, it all comes down to turning a profit. If a publisher can make some money on a book, they like that. (Althought lately, it seems like the publishers are under more pressure to go for the big kills, the blockbusters. The problem with that is when the blockbuster doesn't bust any blocks the publishers loose a lot of money!)
Omer Belsky, Israel: On a less downbeat note, I have a Question about Nitpicking - How do you treat cross-overs? The X-Files jhad a Homocside(Sp?): Life on the Street crossover - can we use That show to nitpick X-Files? and supposedly, there was a Law&Order and Homoside crossover - can we use L&O to nitpick X-Files? and what about `The simpsons?`
Phil: I personally wouldn't use Homicide to nitpick X-Files but, hey, it's only television!
Brian Straight: Shawnee, KS: What is your take on Starfleet losing the Dominio war, or for that matter the war altogether? I personaly feel it takes away fromt he "point" of ST. I' like seeing the exploring the new worlds and new civilizations, etc... Rather than, well the human race, which has over come all of it's ills in the last 400 years, and devloped a nice peacful society, dedicated to creating a unified galaxy, is about to get their clocks cleaned. I enjoyed, when I first got "in to" ST, and learned that in this vision of the future (unlike many other visions) potrayed that the human race has become peacful, and was elated when I learned tha Earth was regarded as paradice. Now it seems like they're trying to take that all away. I certanily hope SOMETHING happens, that causes Starfleet(the human-race) to [defeat the] Dominion, and get us back to the point of Star Trek.
Phil: Well, from a Roddenberry viewpoint, yes, the Dominion should be squashed. From a story telling viewpoint? I'm not sure who you stop these guys!
(Note from Phil: See this week's This Week at NitCentral for Brian's original note.)
Brian Henley: I was proud to see my letter on your webpage. You posed quite an interesting question! Why DO actors (and anyone I've come across who's involved with stagework) think it's so vitally important that they trick us into beliveing their fantasy is real?
I think it to be a measure of the entertainer's professional pride. Look at it form his/her perspective. Hundreds of people in the audience, (in the case of TV/movies millions across the country). Each one of these folks have jobs in the real world (we hope). Stressful jobs, stressfull existences. They probably have a whole lot of productive things they could be doing with their time, rather then trooping over into a cavernous dark room to watch a bunch of people dress up in costumes and pretend to be something they're not. What are all those busy people doing here in the audience??
The question of course, helps to answer itself: People work hard, and so they treat themselves to a break, a diversion. They're weary of a day filled with office paperwork, or selling brooms, or fighting fires, or whatever. They want to escape, and spend a little time in a universe where they can see charachters living out a comedy or tragedy or adventure, but where they themselves don't have to do anything but watch. If this crosses an performer's mind, then naturally he/she'll want to do his job well. He'll want to perfect the illusion, and thus while on stage, allow NO segment of his real self to come through. It's almost like the aura of the charachter is contained in the costume, and only the character is dicernable when he is visible to the audience. The real person, for an hour or two, ceases to exist. (don't worry; he's waiting backstage. He just doesn't want the audience to see him).
My high school drama teacher was obsessed with this idea. In college, when a show is done, we usually go out onto the stage,curtian calls, the house lights go up, and we greet anyone we might know who came to see us. Not so in high school. It was curtian calls, and then we all went backstage to change out of costume - THEN AND ONLY THEN did we said hi to mom and dad. In fact, huge black tarps created a makeshift hallway connecting the stage to the gym, which served as the backstage area. The motive for this was that NOBODY sees the actors in costume except when they are under the spotlights. My teacher was obsessed with the idea of keeping the illusion.
This obsession isn't confiened to the actors. Just look at the stage crew and the set designers. The use every resourse at their command to change a generic looking stage wall into something that looks like The Sahara Desert, an enchanted forrest, the deck of the H.M.S Pinafore whatever is nescessary.
I think it's important that actors and tech crew whould want to blur the lines of reality (only for a while, of course). That's they're job. You can probably understand that, being a novelist. After all, don't you want your readers to forget for a while that they're actually sittng on their living room couch, instead of where you want them to be in your novel?
Of course, books have an end cover, movies have credits, and plays have curtian calls which signal that the fantasy is over and it's back to the real world. That's actually the function of these devices. The credits tell you what real live people worked on to build you this fantasy world, and the curtian calls are where the actors finally surface and take the bows for the job that they did creating their illusion.
That's important too. Fantasy is important, but so is the cut-off point. When people allow the line to blur outside of such boundarys is when you get things like say, people not knowing what defilbulators are for, and not knowing that Apollo 13 was a real story.
Entertainers will always want to envelope us in the illusion for the amount of time that we are under their controll. That's their job, and at the risk of sounding woshipfull, their role in the universe. Humans have always needed entertainment as a stress buster. Arosaphenes, Virgil and Homer were entertaining people back when most folks thought the world was flat. What with barbarians at the gate, Mt. Vesuvius wiping out Pompeii, and plauges, people need a break. They'd see a play., WHen that got old, they's listen to a poem. (And when that got boring, they'd watch a few Christians get chewed up in the Colloseum!) Good clean fun, for the most part.
I'm sure back in caveman days, the Neanderthals would gather 'round and tell stories after a hard day of spearing cave bear and woolly mammoths.
If there's a problem with actors nowadays, it's that we glamorize them so that they're larger then life. Entertainers are entertainers, not deities. Important to the world, but not what the world revolves around. It is very wrong for example, Pamela Lee's and Tommy's recent troubles grabbed more headlines for a week then did Dr.Ho last summer. Know who he is? He and his team are making progress in finding weaknesses in the HIV virus. Slow progress, but progress that was before thought impossible. He got so little press that I'm not even sure of his first name! (Henry, I think) He made the cover of Time magazine, but has since not been heard from. There are too many "real" celebrities to put in mags.
Alright. That was a rant. I'm getting of my soapbox now. But there's my longwinded answer to your question.
Phil: I would really love to respond to this this week but I am out of time! Arrgh! I *have* to get to work. It's already 10:30 AM and I haven't done anything on the Star Wars Guide yet today. I will try to craft a reply this next week because I think you hit some one the point but there's a certain focus I want to proposed because I think there's moe than professional pride going on here! (Humans don't violently emote when they simply don't do a good job unless . . .)
Matthew Patterson: Maybe this one is kind of stupid, but what is your all-time favorite nit that you have seen in any sort of TV program or movie or whatever? And PLEASE don't say it was that communicator thing from "The Offspring" because it was the first one you ever picked. I can understand how it would be special, but saying that it's your favorite just because it was the first is SUCH a cop-out.
Phil: Right now it's the stormtrooper banging his head in Star Wars. LOVE THAT! I LOVE THAT!
Alex Otis: About an hour into USA's Moby Dick, while Ishmael is below decks, did anyone else recognize the whale song as being from ST4:TVH.
Phil: I would imagine that both ST4:TVH and Mody Dick used the same source for their whale song audio. And frankly, when you've heard one whale song, you've heard them all! (Just joking!)
JoAnna: I was flipping through the channels one night about a week ago, and suddenly I saw Kate Mulgrew...but not on Voyager! The movie was called "Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins" (At least, I think so!) Also, Joel Gray, who played Calem (sp?) in "Resistance" was in it. Can anyone confirm that it was Kate Mulgrew playing the female lead? THe character was an Army major. I only caught the last ten minutes of the movie, so I didn't get the plot. Anyway, I'm almost certain it was her, but I'd like to be sure. Anyone?
Phil: I leave it to you fellow nitpickers!
Have a great weekend, everybody!
If you would like to submit a question or comment, send it to: chief@nitcentral.com with "Ask the Chief" or "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 1998 by Phil Farrand. All rights reserved.