(Also available from Starland mirror site)
First, some comments from previous columns . . .
Tom Elmore of Columbia SC: Thought you might find this interesting. David Bauder of the Associated Press writes today (3/24/98) that WB has now beaten UPN for 15 consecutive weaks including the vital February sweeps period. It was the first time that WB did not finish last during the sweeps period. He also states that WB is the top rated network among teen-agers, with an average viewer age of 24.
The UPN death watch continues.
Robert J. Woolley: [Concerning "Mortal Coil"]: How *convenient* for Seven to suddenly remember, "Oh, by the way, Captain, I can bring people back from the dead." Might this not have been a useful item to mention previously? And shouldn't Janeway sit her down and say, "OK, Seven, anything else useful you can do that you forgot to mention? Make us invisible? Zap us back to earth? Make our shields invincible? Raise all our IQs by 200 points?"
And here I was going to go into a long riff about how there is no way that any technology is going to be able to restore brain cellular integrity and function after 18 hours of death and room temperature storage. But I've decided against it, for two reasons. First, there will always be the naysayers with the refrain, "Well, you can never tell what 4 centuries of technological progess will bring." And there's no convincing argument against that. All I can say is that I can believe in dermal regenerators and bone knitters and cortical stimulators and non-surgical surgery and artificial hearts and VISORs and rebuilding people from just their DNA, but not this!
But the main reason for not examining this in more detail is that I just don't care. I don't care about Neelix, about Voyager, about the series. I actually spent most of this episode pondering why I was feeling so completely apathetic. This is the best way I've thought of to express it:
We have to approach any dramatic TV program with a willingness to suspend disbelief to *some* degree. This may be a minor degree for shows that try hard to be realistic (e.g., Homicide); somewhat more for a show like X-Files that deliberately pushes the boundaries of plausibility mixed with reality; and a large degree for futuristic sci-fi that occurs on other planets. That we are willing to give this suspension of disbelief (let's call it SOD) is implicit in turning on the set in the first place.
If the story is sound, the drama genuine, the characters interesting, the emotions familiar, our SOD is rewarded, and we are more willing to bring that SOD back to the next episode. Conversely, if we get bad acting, one-dimensional characters, poor pacing of the plot, etc., we feel cheated and less likely to grant the SOD the next time (if we tune in at all).
More broadly, when a series is consistently rewarding, we're willing to overlook the occasional clunker (STTNG's "Masks" come to mind), just as we'll keep going back to a favorite restaurant in spite of one bad meal. But if our SOD is consistently abused, we become less willing to grant it.
That's what has been happening to me with Voyager. There have been so many disappointing episodes that my willingness to give it my SOD has been rapidly eroding, and I'm afraid it's a vicious cycle. With less SOD, one's perceptino changes; the flaws and implausibility loom ever larger, until they completely overwhelm any virtue the story might have. The last several episodes, I've found that with Voyager: the silliness all seems magnified. I find myself making the same kinds of comments (mentally) that non-fans make when watching sci-fi that I enjoy. That this is largely a subjective process is evident by the Brash Reflections files: episodes that I have found unbearably ridiculous have been hailed by others as great. Things that make me roll my eyes are making others exclaim "Cool!" I have changed. Nitpicking is supposed to be fun--finding flaws in a show that you genuinely enjoyed. But now I find myself feeling more mean-spirited about it, because I'm losing the underlying enjoyment. (Note from Phil: Some times, it *does* take some effort to remain light-hearted!)
Even with this episode, objectively I can see that it's tackling a really interesting question: is something ineffable and supernatural lost at death which no degree of technological mastery of biology can overcome? It seems to me they cheated on the drama by an impossibly simplistic and schmaltzy ending. (A little girl needing him to chase monsters instantly reverses the deep psychological trauma of having been dead, and of losing one's lifetime of faith.) But maybe a year or two ago I would have found this acceptable, because of granting the SOD. But not now.
I think that this process, like cortical necrosis, has reached the point of irreversibility (absent a transfusion of Borg nanoprobes). If there were no new episodes, I wouldn't much care--certainly nothing like the disappointment and sensation of being cheated that I felt for days after viewing the last new episode of STTNG. Lately when I'm watching, I keep thinking that I'd really rather be reading a good novel. And I think that one of these weeks, that's what I'm going to be doing on Wednesday nights.
And thus do series die....
Scott Newton of New Brunswick, NJ: I don't have much time, but I'd like to add some comments on the DS9/Voyager debate.
For me, the most problematic difference between DS9 and the two series that proceeded it is that in TOS and TNG you were dealing with a unified crew. Yes, they had disagreements among themselves (didn't Spock and McCoy have some classic ones?), but the characters were always unified under the Federation banner. When the Captain spoke that was it -- usually. But in DS9, you have Bajorans, Federation people, Quark, Odo, Garrik (sp?) all representing different points of view, and none bound by the Federation. Instead of the challenges coming from outside sources, the challenges come from within. And while the characters on TOS and TNG were larger than life, able to overcome their differences to work for a common goal, and thus, admirable (even -- dare I say -- heroic?), the DS9 characters are so flawed that they are much less worthy of our attention. It's like "Seinfeld" without the humor. (Yes, the TOS and TNG characters were developed execllently, and were quite human, but they also had a larger than life quality that the DS9 and Voyager characters lack.) And, yes, characters who are not larger than life may be more realistic, but that doesn't inspire me to watch them!
Along comes Voyager, and we get the same "disunified crew theory" with the Feds, the Maquis, and Neelix and Kes. But everyone seemed to unite fairly quickly, and that was fine with me! But the characters still seemed to lack that larger than life quality (except the Doctor, who's an absolute scream). I've tried really hard to be open minded with 7 of 9, but she's only exacerbated this problem. She makes Janeway look weak, and diverts attention from the others so that she can trot out the fancy "Swiss Army Knife" Borg technology week after week. And her attitude doesn't help; in fact, I find her less likeable every week.
Another problem with Voyager is the very nature of the series -- stuck on the other side of the galaxy. The connection with the Federation (and thus with humans in the future) is lost. Instead, we just get "Alien of the Week," with no encounter having any particular consequences for the future, or opportunity for future development. And before you say that TOS and TNG had a lot of "Planet/Alien of the Week" too, remember that in those series the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, Borg, and so on were still in the same neighborhood as our favorite starship, and there was always the possibility that they would have to be dealt with again.
Did I say I'dd be quick? Well, I could go on all day, but I'll sign off for now.
Phil: There *is* something to be said for the "Unified Crew Theory." It embodied a basic understand that we could overcome our differences, grow up and learn to fight for a righteous cause. I do agree that the DS9 characters tend to be merely lighter and darker shades of gray
Terry Hulett: Just read your latest Ask The Chief and noticed another comment about the Federation going through the wormhole after the Dominion tells them not to. Well, I don't think this is worthy of a nit.
Picture this. You are the explorer Captaii Cook and one of the islanders you meet tells you they own all the other islands in the direction you are going. So, you turn around and go home? No. You don't recognize the validity of their claim; even if you do you can still sail the ocean!
I believe it was *already* established that the wormhole did not open up into Dominion space when they met the Dominion! (Remember, they had to search out the Dominion, right?) This makes the Dominion telling the Federation to not go through the wormhole similar to China telling the US not to send any ships through the Suez canal.
I do agree with the nits about not going in force and the main charactors casually abandoning the station where their responsibilites lie.
Phil: Um, if I recall correctly, the extent of Dominion territory was not known when the Jem'Hadar guy told Starfleet to stay out. This was one of my problems with the continued trips to the Gamma Quadrant. I believe the first time we hear of Dominion territory boundaries is a passing reference in "Hippocratic Oath"--and the creators slipped it in as if it had already been established . . . which it hadn't. (Or at least, they never told us that it had and if the Dominion boundary *were* known for some time, then I would argue that the creators had an obligation from a story-telling viewpoint to let us know that that crucial piece of information had been established! ;-)
As for Captain Cook, he was operating under an imperial mind-set. I thought in the 24th century we had out-grown the idea that we can go where ever we want because we have a "manifest destiny" to do so! (Wink, wink.)
Ashley Flanagan: And am I the only person who *liked* the last few seasons of TNG??
Phil: I liked the last few season. I just felt like there were more shows without an edge. More shows that were just done for the sake of filling the next slot.
Amos Painter: DS9 and TNG Era TREK, a.k.a. everybody hates DS9 except me After reading the comments on DS9 and how everyone hates it, I feel that I have to share my opinion.
DS9 is the best of the TNG Era Shows, it has everything a viewer could = want:
1. 3-D dimensional characters (no 'yessir' crew members here even the ensigns are bucky) 2. Good Writing. (DS9 has Moore and Behr (and formerly Wolfe)) 3. A Continuing Plot ( No Plant-of-the-Week) 4. NO Kazon (and yes I know the Kazon are gone, I done watch the Show. 5. Beautiful Visual Effects (no Anomaly-of-the-Week) 6. Reoccurring Characters (on Voyagers side for once the show's Formula prevent this so I guess VOY gets a Handicap)
Final Score DS9: 6, VOY: 1 (with a handicap)
Andrew Corcoran: Putting "Star Trek" before the title "Deep Space Nine" is almost definitely to show us that this station is linked in with the Enterprise and Voyager adventures. What I have found myself doing during DS9 is saying "Stardate 51034.5? Hey, Voyager are saving a penguin around now 75,000 light years away (or something)!" Because I watch both series religiously, I have found myself not there purely for the entertainment, but for the history produced by each episode. Just think, the battle of Wolf 359 is always remembered, and I was there to watch it on its UK debut. In fact, that was the first TNG episode I watched all the way through! Picard is scarred by the Borg - I watched as the Borg stretched and twisted him (mentally) during his assimilation. Although, I must admit, it didn't seem that dramatic at the time, we saw the effect it had had on him during episodes such as "Family," "I, Borg" and the film "First Contact."
We have all been there. The characters make a reference to a past episode, linking it in. Only those who watch every episode will understand the nice touch added in. I am sure there are some nitpickers out there who don't fully understand how the wormhole came about, or how Voyager got to the Delta Quadrant.
Many nitpickers are right. Star Trek has changed from being an one-episode adventure a week to long story arcs and character threads - although they provide entertainment. Don't forget (if you can even remember it) Murder One tried one story spanning a whole season. Did Americans like it? It didn't look like it. Did the British like that? Well, let's just say BBC2 got A LOT of complaints when they stopped Murder One three episodes from the end to show the Atlanta Olympics, which persuaded them to have an unofficial "Murder One Night" to finish of the series. The second season was shown within a couple of months (two or three episodes a week!) so that BBC2 wouldn't get any more complaints because of the breaks within this continuity. The end of the first season appeared in papers nationwide - the jury decides - in a fictitious TV program!
I know I am ranting (as many people do). Maybe I should get to the point. For the sake of the US fans of Star Trek, maybe the creators should think whether it is worth continuing excruciatingly long story arcs or whether they should set about attracting back those Trekkers who stopped watching due to continuity - but hey! It makes good nitpicking!
And the title of Star Trek..... What was it going to be? Wagon-Way to the Stars, or something? WTTS: Deep Space Nine. You see, Star Trek means "Adventures in exploring the stars." Deep Space Nine is about a station, a war, the families, the characters, and the Gamma Quadrant. It is a whole lot more than TOS, so does it still deserve the original title? TOS involved a week-by-week search of new life forms and planets. DS9 searches out what is in each character and how it is affected by the world around it, and the present situations on the station. It shows us *life* in the 24th century, not necessarily adventures. Maybe - just maybe - it is time to give these series and movies a chance to be a bit more independent.
I find I am so un-opinionated! Here I am talking about possibly separating the series, when at the start I was talking about how I like the way they are linked! I am definitely making some sort of point, I'm just not sure what it is! Can you decipher the meaning behind it? These are just my thoughts on the whole Star Trek series as a whole.
Oh, and I agree that the TV series (both) should be put to rest - no new ones yet - and let the movies continue on. Star Trek DEFINITELY needs a rest! The universe is being shook apart, because the creators are doing everything they can to keep the ratings up! (There, could that be the point I am making?)
Shane Tourtellotte: The whole fourth season of "Babylon 5" was compacted, not just the end of the Shadow War. Mr. Straczynski had conceived B5 as a five-season arc, but it was plain by season four that the show might not last that long. He therefore condensed story lines that should have lasted two seasons (Shadow War, Minbari civil war, Telepath genocide plot, fall of President Clark) into one season. In one sense he was right -- B5 lost its syndication contract, and could have left its stories hanging forever unresolved -- and in sense another wrong -- TNT picked up the show, but *after* he had finished the condensed arc. In short(I know, too late :-)), the Shadow War did end abruptly, but not because it was originally planned that way. (Note from Phil: Um . . . wait a minute: I believe the Shadow War ended in the middle of the *third* season! I remember thinking, "Okay, now he has a year and a half to fill!" And I don't believe there was any talk of rushing to cancel B5 at the end of the third season so I would be inclined to conclude that the end of the Shadow War happened as JMS had planned all along!)
As to why Scott McClenny thinks it could still be Willie Mays in "Far Beyond The Stars":
Scott's first point, that this is a parallel universe and Mays's number and service record could be different, is sadly too plausible. The creators have shown, especially on "Voyager", that their universe sprang from ours only when it suits the writers. I like to think that their present is our future, but that would require too much continuity from them, and it seems sometimes they can't be bothered. (sigh) As for the "It's all in Sisko's mind" theory, remember that Sisko is a big baseball fan, and knowledgable of the game's distant past(distant as in 20th century). It's entirely possible that he *should* know Mays's number and active playing years. Again, though, maybe doesn't mean definitely. I guess there's enough wiggle room for a lot of explanations of that episode.
Wells P. Martin: I would like to 2nd the motion on comments from Omer Belsky, Israel about the Duet episode. It has always been a stand-out for me, alonf with Battlelines and Captive Pursuit.
Phil: I too agree that Duet was a great episode!
[From Someone Identified Only As D4everman]: I've seen the answers given to my question awhile ago about the roles of NCO's in starfleet. I don't find them satisfactory..the reason is simple...it doesn't make snense except for its what the writers said.
O' Brien being the man for the job does not wash. My boss is an E-8...he is admittedly more skilled than I am...but that doesn't mean he's going to do the dirty work! A weak analogy would be this...when i was first made an NCO in the army, I had a soldier ask me to do a menial task basically because she didn't want to do it, but my response was "Why would I? i have you to do it? i'll help if its needed, but I have you and an entire squad to do it...you do it, i supervise...I worked for this position." Yeah, that sounds callous...but its the way it works! Phil said it in another way in the Next Gen Nitpicker;s guide on "Chain of Command"...would Gen Shwartskoff (SP) lead a delta force mission? No...I just want the creators to make up their minds on O' Brien's rank and portray it in a reasonabe sense. It would help if they made him simply the 24th century equivalent of the stations Sergeant Major...lets face it folks...the rank structure in DS9 makes no sense whatsoever unless it has something to do with the plot. which tend to be thin
John Burke of Hyannis, MA: Regarding the "Ask the Chief" discussion about the upcoming Star Wars Guide... I hesitate to even suggest what should or shouldn't be in it, first of all because I acknowledge that you have the absolute right to put whatever the heck you want in your own book, and secondly because I'm just pleased that the Star Wars Guide is taking place at all.But everyone else seems to be making suggestions, so I thought I'd add my two cents...
I'm curious about the decision to include the Young Adult books (either the earlier kid-oriented ones or the more recent Kevin Anderson ones.)I suppose that technically they're as cannonical as the adult books since they're in all the reference stuff, but I'm just not sure that the people who read Nitpicker's Guides are the same people who are interested in books aimed at children.(True, "Star Wars" itself was sort of aimed at children, but there's still a difference)I for one read anything with the name Star Wars attached to it...except the children's books.(By the same token, I would hesitate to include the comics, except that they're referenced *so often* in the books.) Also, I wonder whether a children's or "Young Adult" book can be held to the same nitpicking standard as one that is aimed at an older audience--do children's books even try that hard to take themselves seriously?
I don't know--maybe this is just "sour grapes" because those books appear to be the only material in the Guide that I am unfamiliar with. Anyway, it's your book.Best of luck with it...
Phil: I simply can find nothing in the comments by the creators to differentiate the adult novels from the childrens novel. Some of the childrens novel are ever written by the same people who write the adult novels!
Mike Deeds: As for the title to your Star Wars Guide, I think that you practically HAVE to call it either "The Nitpicker's Guide TO Star Wars" or "The Nitpicker's Guide FOR Star Wars". As stated before, there really is NO recognizable slang term for Star Wars fans.
Phil: It's a possibility! We just have to check out the legalities.
John Latchem: When I referred to the "Classic Star Wars" I was referring to the Dark Horse series which reprints the Goodwin/Williamson comic strips from the early 1980s. These are readily availiable in three volumes from Dark Horse.
I vote for the entries listed in chronological order, with a sidebar listing them by release date.
I assume that, if it works out with copyrights, that "Nitpicker's Guide for Star Wars" is the default title (if it is do I get the autographed copy? j/k) (Note from Phil: Unfortunately, Mike Deeds beat you to it! ;-) , since this is the simplist, most recognizable title, the best from a marketing and sales standpoint I'd think. But if the problem is the copyright of the term "Star Wars" then any use of that term, such as "Star Wars Fans" would be a problem. There is a book called "The Ultimate Unauthorized Star Wars Trilogy Trivia Challenge." So there's an instance of the use of "Star Wars" in the title there.
That said here's a few more suggestions.
The Nitpicker's Guide to George Lucas
The Nitpicker's Guide to Blue Harvest (fake working title for ROTJ)
The Nitpicker's Guide: Special Edition (pictures of Millenium Falcon, X-Wing,
Star Destroyer, and a Death Star on the cover so there is no mistake what this
book covers)
The Nitpicker's Guide for a Galaxy Far, Far Away (again pictures to clear up
any doubt. Don't want anyone to think this is about a Tom Cruise movie.)
The Special Edition Nitpicker's Guide for a Galaxy Far, Far Away (or any other
combination thereof)
Matthew Patterson: So, if you will comment on discrepancies caused by extra footage in the Special Edition films, where will it go? Will it be a Changed Premise, since the original release is different from the Special Edition and they were released at different times? Or will it be a Continuity and Production error, since they're technically the same movie?
Phil: They are under a special category called "Special Edition Additions"
Amos Painter: I don't much care for the idea of a SW guide. I liked SW, I enjoyed SW, but SW ain't no Star Trek. I might flip through it to read the nits for the three movies, but myself being a SW novice won't be interested in typos in Comic Books or some authors weird descriptions on Space Oddities. I wouldn't be interested in shelling out my hard earned money to buy a book which contains 80% information I don't care about.
But before my membership in the Nitpickers Guild is revoked, I like the TNG and DS9 Guides. When I'm bored I'll just pick up a guide a flip through and enjoy a good read. In my opinion, the next guide should be Trek guide, like DS9 II or Voyager, or even a Combo Guide with DS9, TNG Movies, and VOY (that would increase the Fan base you reach).
Not complaining, just commenting.
Phil: And everybody gets a chance to comment around here! (Unless they're beligerant and then I edit! ;-)
Tom Elmore of Columbia SC: Okay here's some ideas for tittles:
Nitpicker guide for Star Knights
Jed's Nitpicker Guide for the Force
The Forceful Nitpicker Guide
Nitpickers guide for starry knights
the nitpickers guide for knights of the force
Phil: Thanks for the input!
Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: I love the idea of letting the Guild come up with the name of the Star Wars Guide. It is interesting to note that in all these years a simple, one word term for Star Wars fans has never caught on. As a fan, I don't have a problem with it. I think the frustation really sets in with abbreviation-happy internet culture.
Another note on the comics section: John Latchem mentions the Classic Star Wars reprints done by Dark Horse. I agree that the original series would make a great inclusion in the Guide. These newspaper strips were written after Empire Strikes Back to help fill in some of the gaps between Empire and Star Wars. It was a valiant effort by the creators and deserves recognition. It explains why the Rebels left the Yavin base, how they discovered Hoth, and even shows the encounter between Han and a bounty hunter on Ord Mantell that he mentions in Empire (note from Phil: Hmmm. Might have to pick those up just to mention in passign!)
A later series called Classic Star Wars: The New Adventures was also published by Dark Horse. These were reprints of a newspaper strip that appeared after Star Wars and before Empire. Aside from being out of sync with the continuity of the Star Wars Universe, the strip itself had problems such as not ending a story tread before starting a new one. It might be a good candidate for the Fun Apocryphal Stuff section, though.
As for other comics, looking at your list from 3/13 of what you plan to include and what you might include, I have a few comments. I think that if you are going to include any Tales of the Jedi comics, then you should include all of them. The Tales tend to form a continuity within itself and some elements have appeared in the Bantam novels. Secondly, I reccomend including the Rogue Squadron comics. It's a great series and it fits in with the series of novels. If including these cause some space constraints for the guide, then I would reccomend cutting out the Droids series. Getting background info on 3PO and R2 is neat, but this info usually doesn't appear in other areas of the SW Universe. I would also reccomend staying away from the comic adaptations of the novels. These really don't add anything to the novels other than illustrations of characters introduced in that novel. (Note from Phil: I take it from this then that the X-wing comics are *not* adaptations of the X-Wing novels? If that's true then, yeah, I should probably include them!)
I have a question for John Latchem. He claims that elements from the two Ewok Adventures TV movies appear in the Bantam novels. I would like to know where. The Ewoks are largely ignored in the adult Bantam novels. (Although look for a cameo appearance of pair of Ewoks as part of Lando's and Wedge's crew in the beginning of the Dark Empire comic ;-)
Matthew Patterson brings up the Ewok Celebration music at the end of Return of the Jedi: The Special Edition. He claims that a nit is created in the drums and Imperial helmets the Ewoks bang away on not matching the music. I disagree. First of all, while it is safe to assume that the original celebration music was meant to emanate from the Ewok village, I don't think the same assumption can be made in the Special Edition. If we do make that assumption, then we must also assume that the same music is being played on Tatooine, Cloud City, Imperial Center, and Endor at the same time. That's a rather large assumption. I think that the music is better viewed as an overlay to the actual celebrations occuring on the different planets in order to tie the celebrations together Perhaps the Ewoks are still singing "Celebrate the love!" as they did orginally, but this time the audience hears this new (and, IMHO, wonderful) piece of music.
Plus, if you listen closely in the movie, then you will hear the sound effects for the drums and the Imperial helmets. They are not part of the music, but they are mixed in with the other sounds of celebration.
I think that's enough for now.... ;-)
Andrew Corcoran: I also agree that the funniest nit is the Stormtrooper losing a few brain cells! As for a title (good prize, good prize!), if you can't use the name "Star Wars," how about "A Guide To Nitpicking the Universe of Lucas," or something? I think "Nitpickers Guide" is a bit obsolete. I mean, maybe it shows it is your set of books, but I thought, you know, new frontier in nitpicking, new frontier in titles!
The content..... I don't know how I could get my hands on all the literacy stuff (you know, the stuff on paper), so if I am to buy this book, please make sure to angle it towards those who are movie watchers. I don't know how, but maybe you should mainly focus on links within each book to movies, or something.
Phil: Well, from a marketing viewpoint, "Nitpicker's Guide" is a recognizable term so abandoning it altogether would be business suicide. If "The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Wars" doesn't work, how about something like: "Of Stormtroopers' Helmets And Low-Slung Doors: A Nitpicker's Guide Star Wars." (I don't believe there's any problem with using trademarked terms in a secondary title.) The cover could feature and comic book drawing of the stormtrooper whacking his head on the doorway to the command bay. (Maybe even have C3PO leaned in from the side with a confused look on his face and R2D2 in the other corner snickering. And, yes, I know they were really in the closet at the time!)
(SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER)
Scott McClenney: Reading about the possibility of a new Dax got me to think that maybe just for the fun of it the new Dax ought to act really erractic for the first several episodes(if Terry doesn't come back as Dax that is). If it is a female they should make her into a real pants chaser. Have her really be the opposite of Jadzia. Or they could make her into a bit of a homocidal manaic for the first few episodes have her try to kill Worf when no-one is around. Hey,it worked in The Twin Dilemma when Colin Baker took over from Peter Davison on Dr.Who. The entire first part the Doctor tries to kill poor Peri,also poor Peri has to survive the Doctor's mood swings.
Chris Marks: Let me first say that I have no real problem with changing Dax's host, my problem is that there will be no time for character development. Yes, Doctor Who has done it seven times now, but each time the character has changed, i) it's been the shows main character that's changed, and ii) we've had at least three years of character development. The only time they haven't was with Paul McGann in the tv movie of two years ago, and what do we know about his character and personality? Not much.
Think of it this way, if Luke Skywalker had been first introduced into Return of The Jedi thirty minutes before the credits rolled, would we really accept him as the hero?
Going back to my first point above, Dax has always suffered from what I call the 'three pip syndrome'. Basically, if you don't have three full pips, or you're not a real oddball character that the creators want to develop, you get about one episode a year. I mean, how much do we really know about Uhura, or Checkov, Sulu, Deanna Troi, Bev Crusher, Harry Kim.... Denise crosby left TNG because her character wasn't developing.
So, if there are any of the creators of DS9 reading this, then take Dax and promote her. Give her a Defiant and send her off against the Dominion. Let DS9 struggle on without her. Just don't give us half a character that we'll never see grow beyond the audition scripts calls because you're going to finish the series in a years time.
Jennifer Pope, Longview, WA: I've been following the 'favorite movies' discussion, and I noticed that 'The Princess Bride' got more than a few votes, including one from our illustrious Chief. Having already read the book, I decided to see if the movie deserved the accolades it was receiving. It did! I loved it. Thanks for the tip, fellow nitpickers. BTW, if you've seen the movie and liked it but never read the book, READ THE BOOK!!! The movie did a great job of sticking to the story, but a ton of really good stuff got left out any way. Don't miss it.
Joe Griffin: One of the myriad reasons I had to despise TNG was the families aboard the Ent-D. I'm sorry, but it's still a military vessel. I wouldn't want to be in a dangerous situation in deep space and have to be distracted from my job wondering if my kids were okay down on deck 12. And the argument that the NextGen Enterprise was "more of a research/exploration vessel" doesn't cut it. The original ship's mission was one of exploration as well (says so in the opening credits--"Explore...seek out...go."). Kids, it's dangerous out there where no man has gone before. No matter how nifty-looking your ship is, you're still venturing into the unknown. Along with completely useless characters like Troi (how characteristic of the '80s to have a shrink on the bridge!), this families issue was one of the things that contributed to the whole "kinder, gentler" atmosphere that made early TNG a seriously watered-down rehash of TOS.
Phil: Just in case any of you were wondering, Callie and I had a very nice chat this week and everything is fine!
John Latchem: As far as considering "The Menagerie" as one episode there is some classic trickery here, and a lot of revisionism. There are a few grand myths associated with the Original Star Trek. One is Kirk sleeping with a lot of women (In actuality only a handful, but certainly NOT one every episode). Another is the phrase "Beam me up, Scotty," which was never used in such form. And then there is the "fact" that there are 79 TOS episodes. Well, quite frankly, this is not quite true. When the show was sold into syndication, there were 79 episodes. This number became quite well known, even legendary. Everyone knows there are 79 TOS episodes. That's the benchmark. TNG celebrated passing it with "Legacy." DS9's 80th episode was approprately called "Starship Down." Even Voyager managed to make it that far, with the episode "Mortal Coil" (so much for reverence. It was a Neelix episode, for goddness sake!).
However, when the once thought lost original pilot "The Cage" resurfaced a few years back, Paramount rightly looked at it and thought, "Hey, we can make money off of this in syndication too." So they edited it down and sold it out. Wait a second, now there are EIGHTY episodes! The magic number is broken! That's not good. So Paramount goes back, sees that "The Menagerie" was produced as one episode, under the production number "16." Whew, that was close.
So Paramount can very easily push the "fact" that "The Menagerie" is one episode, despite every other two parter in history, even the two hour episodes, being counted as two episodes! And this is what happened! No one will publish a list of TOS episodes without listing "The Cage," (even you Phil) and yet almost all of these sources mentions "The 79 Original Episodes" when in fact there are 80!
I can see it now. I'm on Jeopardy. The category is "Classic Television" for $600. "There were this many episodes of the Original Star Trek produced before it was finally cancelled."
Many would be wrong and declared right. But only I would know the real question, and now you do to. "What is 79 or 80, depending on if you count "The Menagerie" as one episode or two?"
Amos Painter: The Division of 2-Hour Episodes Cuts that I know of:
DS9
Way of the Warrior
-the Opening Credits scene with Bashir and O'Brien eating sand peas/Quark comments about noise in the Bar (this is the major one I know of in this episode.)
-some of the useless scenes aka cuts in the Battle FX? (maybe not?)
TNG
All Good Things...
-Picard/Q in the Pasteur's Ready Room? (it's been a few years and like WOTW my copy of this is the 2-hour version, luckily, I mean who could stand to miss such lines as:
Q: "What did you say 'You want your mommy'?" . :-)
Mike Deeds: I agree that Homicide episodes shouldn't be used to nitpick The X-Files. However, the nit I sent you concerning whether both shows exist in the same fictional universe is legitimate in my own humble opinion. In case you forgot, I will repeat the nit:
Michael Deeds of Philadelphia, PA wrote, "I have a nit for The X-Files episode 'Unusual Suspects' (11/16/97). This episodes stars Richard Belzer as Detective Munch from Homicide: Life on the Streets. Thus, it implies that Homicide and The X-Files exist in the same fictional universe. However, here comes the nit. In the Homicide episode 'Partners' (1/20/95), a character refers to The X-Files as a fictional TV show that airs at nine o'clock on Fridays! Can you guess which character has this line? Yes, it is Munch played by Richard Belzer! So, this episode implies that these two shows do NOT exist in the same fictional universe!"
I consider this nit to be legitimate only because of the total contradiction in the premise of the XF episode.
Phil: I *do* agree that this is a legitimate nit! In fact, I included it in the December 1997 issue of the newsletter!
Ryan Whitney of Evanston, IL: St. Elsewhere can now be considered in the X-Files universe. In the 3/20/98 episode of Homicide, Alfre Woodard reprises her role from St. Elsewhere.
Rene Charbonneau: Personally, I never agreed with Gene's "vision" of the future. I never thought that 400 years of technology would elevate us to the point where the Earth is a paradise. In 400 years from now, we will still be greedy, selfish and self-centered as a society. I also never thought that Star Trek was about humans being in a paradise in the future. I also thought Trek was about humans still being imperfect. For example, in TOS, there are many instances where Kirk would act selfishly...like in the episode with Leonoardo Davinci, where Kirk spends his time trying to get Rayna to leave with him, while his crew are suffering from a disease.
I think the Dominion is what makes DS9 a more interesting show and to squash it just because Gene lived in a fantasy world would be a dumb idea. I also like the conflict that happens occasionaly between the stars and guest stars. It's why DS9 is one of the more interesting.
Phil: And again, this is why some Trek fans are uncomfortable with DS9 because Roddenberry's vision *was* that humans had "grown up" in the 24th century. It was a core optimism on which the show was built and--some would say--contributed to its success!
[From Someone Identified Only as MWilso8660: I also read the letter from Brian Straight and it raised an interesting point in my mind. In the Trek universe, Earth has no hunger, crime, ho,eless, etc...and no money! They have stated several times that the use of money or pursuit of material gain is no longer a driving principle...so i really wonder how all of this "happiness" came along. Remember,there was also a 3rd world war and the eugenic wars of the nineties that i must have slept through. Its a nice fantasy, and one we should all be hoping for but its not very realistic. Unless some profound occurrence takes place we will be who we've always been...very flawed human beings and we've been fighting, killing and disagreeing with each other way before recorded history. With the apparent lack of any earth religion on Trek i find our divine revelation on the show too hard to swallow...but as I said its only fantasy.
And Fantasy sells on TV mostly because of conflict! Why do people like Star Wars? The catharthis of watching the death star blow up has got to ring pretty high on the choices! If the writers of DS9 wanted to tell a story they should have done a better job with the War with the Dominion. Except for one episode starrring jake they didn't really show the horror that war is. They could have made it more than a space shoot 'em up at the end and shown how a war can strain the emotions and stamina of those that are caught up in it. I could use this line of reasoning with Voyager also since they don't ever seem particularly stressed out. it may have been a cheesey show but "Space 1999" did a better job at showing humans in a really bad situation but striving to survive. Well, thats just my opinion.
Joe Griffin: First off, it's not neccesarily _the actors_ fantasy; it is more likely the playwrite's fantasy. (If the question is why a person chooses to be an actor, there are as many answers as there are actors. But I don't think that was really the question.) But as a nitpicker, I'm suprised you would ask that question. Look at what we do here at NitCentral: we pull apart every little thing that exposes the artifice of television/film for what it is, whether the perceived problem is in the plot, the sets, the effects, the acting, the dialogue...(most folks seem to be of the opinion that the acting on Voyager and DS9 is substandard, and Bab5 has the worst-looking outer space sequences on TV.) As audience members, we are demanding a convincing approximation of reality. If the fantasy world of the play or the movie is not convincing, we're not going to watch.
Some actors I know believe that the audience is there because of the actors. I think it's the other way around; without an audience, an actor is out of a job. The audience is the reason the entertainment industry exists. So I guess the question is, why do _we_ need it to seem so real?
Phil: Well, personally, I nitpick to remind myself that the performance *isn't* real not because I'm concerned about making it *more* real but that's a side issue. I do think part of the answer here is: Why do viewer need entertainment to be so real. Read on.
Andrew Corcoran: Now, we have also got on to the discussion on acting. Now, as an actor myself (or a wannabe actor, at least), Although I find mistakes funny (such as bloopers shows), I can also understand how uncomfortable it can be seeing a fictitious character, and then suddenly, after a long time putting the face to this character, you see the actor! I know that after years of watching a soap with a particular actor in, you get accustomed to their character, and they appear almost to be real. If you saw them in the street (the actors), you would recognize them as the character, and not as their real selves (highlighted in a particular Friends episode where Joey meets a woman who thinks he is a real doctor, when all that is is the character in the soap he is in, so Joey plays along for the whole episode, until everything goes wrong towards the end). Seeing the actor, although it is trivial, diminishes the fantasy of whatever they were playing. Suddenly you realise the history of their character is fictitious. I know I may be sounding weird, and I see only a fictitious world, but once I sit down to watch an episode of something, I am tuned in to that world, whatever it is.
Take Avery Brooks, for instance. In DS9, he is a hard-hitting captain, who does his job well, but knows when to have fun, playing baseball with Jake, or whatever. But mainly he is responsible, and is kind. Now, although this is my opinion and my limited knowledge of the actor, I see Brooks as quite different. At a convention I remember reading about, he went around shouting about peace and tranquillity, kindness to all men, etc. Then he got all the children up on the stage and said "This is why I live." Is this right? Now, I respect the man for his feelings, but, in a way, the curtains have been pulled down. This character, we suddenly realise, is in fact, quite a unique person, who looks almost sacrificial (he will do anything for children - no rude comments, please!). I sometimes find myself seeing on the screen, not Sisko any more, but Brooks. It rather spoils the universe. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the actors should be hidden away, just DON'T expect the actors to be like the characters! Actually, I rather like seeing the actors behind the characters. It is almost like seeing the puppeteer after seeing the puppet at work, although I don't think it is a good idea seeing the puppeteer with the puppet (or Avery Brooks dressed up as Captain Sisko on the set).
Phil: Unfortunately, I am out of time but let me take a quick stab at this whole thing. As an aside (at the risk of offending fans of Scully), there was an addition "You Might Be An X-phile . . ." entry in that sidebar for the X-phile Guide that I cut from the manuscript. I wrote it just to tweak my editor because I knew she would never approve it! (She's a Scully fan.) This is just a little joke but it dove-tails with what Andrew just mentions. You might be an X-phile . . . if you've ever expect Gillian Anderson to say something intelligent at an awards ceremony! (Ouch, ouch, ouch, sorry, sorry)
Okay . . . on with the show. We have two intertwining issues here: Why do the creators work so hard to convince us of there fantasy and why do we demand that they do. Consider what happens from the writer's viewpoint in fantasy. They get to create a world, populate it with their own characters, command the characters to act and speak certain ways. They can move mountains. They can destroy cities. They can wipe out whole races if they choose. In short, they are gods! Now, when a nitpicker comes along and says, "yeah, but . . ." their godhood crumbles a bit. Creators normally don't like that!
Consider it from the actors point of view. When the actor, acts, he or she normally knows all the dialogue in advance and he or she knows how the play or the episode or the movie will turn out. They are "all-knowing". And if the movie or television episode is really popular, the actor's face will be plastered everywhere. They become "all-present". And . . . if the character becomes popular the power of that character transfers to the actor. Joey is happy to pretend he's really a doctor.
Let's review, acting has the potential to make one "all-knowing," "all-present" and "powerful." Hmm. This is what I call "divine inflation"--the elevation of the flawed and futile to something more. As example we have an interesting terminology that we adopt when divine inflation exalts an entertainer. We say the actor is a "star." In other words, he or she is high above us. Other terminology is even more telling. Ever heard the phrase, "teen idol"?
This divine inflation is very seductive and when something happens to rip a hole in it--i.e. an actor completely flubbing a line or dropping out of character--the result is anger because some small token of godhood has been taken away.
Now, from my viewpoint, divine inflation can be something that affects us or it can be something that we bestow. Personally, I feel that many offer divine inflation to technology, they expect the computer to always be right. And if the computer is perfect . . . well . . . that perfection might rub backward onto us the users.
Which bring us to our viewpoint, why do we like the fantasy to be so complete? Could it be because we grant divine inflation to the illusion . . . to the perfect people with their perfect complexions and their exciting, exalted, fascinating live. And if we then grant them this divine inflation--this . . . worship--are we then somehow exalted ourselves? Is this why some fans get *so* angry at nitpickers? (Gotta go. I am way out of time!)
Jonathan Carter: Yes, Kate Mulgrew did play the lead female role in 'Remo Williams -- The Adventure Begins,' which is an awful, awful movie. It's a movie that's so bad it's hilarious to watch. After about a month of training, our hero, Remo (played by Fred Ward), can run across water and dodge bullets fired at pointblank range. You get the idea.
Phil: Thanks to Joe Griffin, Patrick Sweeney, Ryan Whitney, Heather B. Smith, Christopher Pope, Jim Elek and MWilso8660 for sending along this information as well.
On to the questions, Busy, busy, busy . . .
Ashley Flanagan: In some ads for Space: Above and Beyond on the Sci-Fi Channel recently, there's a guy that looks and sounds a lot like Robert Duncan McNeil (Tom Paris of Voyager). He's never on screen for more than a few seconds, so I can't be sure. In one scene he says something like, "Now the only thing that means a d*** to you is life.. ." Anyone know if this is really him?
Phil: No idear! Don't even get cable. Anybody?
Gina Torgersen of LaCrosse Florida: There is a commercial airing on a Jacksonville, Florida station about something called Star-something 1998. It plays DS9 theme music and shows pictures of characters (dress as your favorite character for $1 off admission), and advertises that Jackson de Ville will be there. Who's Jackson de Ville?
Phil: No idear! Anybody?
Aaron Gyarfas: I believe I know of another of those mysterious missing scenes that wind up on the cutting room floor or appear only in the original draft of the screenplay (or solely in the minds of us fans!). I swear I remember seeing an additional part to the scene in "ST:Generations" (either on screen or in a magazine or SOMEWHERE) where Soren has Geordi strapped in the torture chair. In the video version I have, the scene ends with Soren saying "Tell me everything you know about trilithium" but I distinctly remember seeing Soren threaten Geordi with a device similar to the one the Cardassian used on Picard in "Chain of Command" which is attached to the heart. This would explain Dr. Crusher's curious statement about removing "the probe" and would correspond to Soren's snide remark to the Duras sisters after questioning Geordi. They ask him if he found out anything and he says "NO, his HEART just wasn't in it."
Phil: There was a scene in the original screen play (I have the rough draft) in which La Forge was tortured by Soran. I'm pretty sured it's also in the novelization so perhaps you read it there?
Robert J. Woolley: I missed "Mortal Coil" the first time around, so just saw it yesterday. It occurred to me that it might be fun to see if we can compile a list of all the ways Trek creators have come up with to bring somebody back from the dead. I'll start off with just a few:
Borg nanoprobes restore the function of necrotic cells. (STV: Mortal Coil)
A protomatter device reorganizes one's cellular matter. (ST III)
Q lets you live your life over again. (STTNG: Tapestry)
You jump to an alternative timeline. (STV: Year of Hell; STTNG: Yesterday's Enterprise)
Closely related: The person was only dead in a parallel timeline. (STTNG: "Parallels")
The person wasn't really dead--just faking death. (TOS: "Amok Time")
You immediately give them an antidote to the poison. (STTNG: "A Matter of Honor")
The person has redundant vital organs and so only appeared dead. (STTNG: "Suspicions")
They're not really dead, just out of phase with the rest of the universe. (STTNG: "The Next Phase")
You break out of the temporal causality loop that killed you. (STTNG: "Cause and Effect")
You run time backward to a point before the death occurred. (STTNG: "Timescape")
Phil: Looks like a fun list to me! Anybody have anything to add to it?
Phil Farrand: Yeah, that's right! It's me! I have a couple of questions! First, is there a *published* version of the script for Empire Strikes Back? The Art of Star Wars books for A New Hope and Return of the Jedi have the complete script but the one for Empire doesn't. Arrgh! I ask because there is an illustrated script that it going to be released for Empire in May of 1998 and I'm wondering if this is the first time the "official" script is going to be sold. I really would like to get a copy of that script since it's canonical but amazon.com doesn't sell it. (And yes, I do have a script that I down loaded from the web for Empire, I'd just like to find something more authoritative. Something that was sold over the counter with the Lucasfilms copyright! ;-)
Second, I got a call a couple of days ago from Rob Bernstein. he works with Yahoo Chat (I think) and they are going to do a series of interviews with X-files stars and he was looking for some information. Specifically he was look for instances of "wired" technology in the X-Files. I rammed together a list for him. But I also told him I would mention it in this column and see if you all could come up with anything that I missed.
Here's what I've already sent him:
A Few Instances Of "Wired" Technology In The X-Files
"Ghost In The Machine": An intelligent computer accesses Scully's home computer via the phone lines.
"One Breath": The Lone Gunmen tell Mulder that he's welcome to come over Saturday night. They are hopping on the Internet to nitpick the scientific inaccuracies of Earth 2.
"One Breath": The Lone Gunmen download Scully's medical data to a hacking genius named "The Thinker."
"Aubrey": Scully apparently uses the Internet to access sophisticated imaging software at the FBI.
"Die Hand Die Verletzt": Scully accesses a newsgroup for information on Milford Haven, CT.
"Die Hand Die Verletzt": Scully accesses the FBI's database to gain information on a substitute teacher named Mrs. Paddock.
"Colony": Mulder receives an anonymous email that alerts him to the murder of three doctors with the exact same facial features.
"End Game": Scully checks her email while at Mulder's apartment.
"Fearful Symmetry": Mulder links up for a live video conference with The Lone Gunmen.
"Anasazi": The Thinker hacks into the Department of Defense database and downloads the original UFO intelligence files--the record of the governments's knowledge and involvement with extraterrestrials.
"2SHY": A serial killer uses online services to find his "lonely-heart" victims.
"Never Again": Scully accesses an FBI forensics information database via the World Wide Web.
"Paper Hearts": When a serial killer named Roche seems to know too much about Mulder, Scully speculates that he learned everything he knows from the Internet.
"Kill Switch": An intelligence living on the Web targets its creator.
A few other possibilities: Scully accesses databases in "Gethsemane" and Herrenvolk" And "Red Museum" has an interesting "channeling" session where the leader of the group types at a computer and his aide reads the words as they are being projected on a large video screen!
Can anybody think of anything else?
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.