First, some comments from previous columns . . .
Bullies on the Playground and the End of the Nitpicker's Guides
Beginning with Phil Farrand's comments at the end of
the 5/15/98 column
Jason Barnes: Thanks for posting that last part in the Column. I wrote that out of concern that people would think "Hey, what's THIS guy doing slamming the chief?" That does clear things up a bit and I'm glad to know that things aren't as bad as I thought they were. It's still bad, just not as. Well, good luck with the consolting job (was that what it was?). It's sad there will be no more Guides as you started a very popular trend amongst the Trekkers and in X-Files. It's a shame it won't be continued (I wonder if Jonathon Frakes likes the books. He did comment on it filming ST: FC.)
Phil: Well . . . I didn't really start the nitpicking trend. Nitpicking was around a long time before me and it will be around a long time after I'm gone. I will take some credit for popularizing it as a spectator sport though!
The Death Of Jadzia
Beginning with Matt Greer's comments in the 6/12/98 column
Matt Greer: The prohibition against Trills continuing their relationships after death only apply to two joined Trills who have been married. If you have the latest addition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia check out the entry "reassociation". A joined Trill can have relationships with friends of former hosts.
I guess if a joined Trill was married to an unjoined Trill or an alien this rule would not apply. On the topic of dax's next host, would you really wanna be host to this symboint? 3 of it's last 4 hosts have died in under 10 years with 2 of them in under a year. If I were a trill and the only symboint i could get was Dax i would seriously consider not joining.
Phil: Since the Encyclopedia is canonical, I suppose that if it says, reassociation only applies to Trills married to each other, then I guess that is that! It just cracks me up, though, how the these things have to be explained away because there seems to be so little forethought in the whole creative process out there! ;-)
Murray Leeder: Of course, the song is inevitable[ complements of my cousin Daniel]:
The Dax came back, the very next day,
The Dax came back, you thought she was a gonner,
But the Dax came back, she just wouldn't stay away.......
Phil: I'm lovin' that!
An NCC Prefix For The Defiant
Beginning with the comments of Aaron Dotter in the 8/15/98
Column
Jason Allan Haase: In the new issue of Star Trek Communicator (The Magazine of the Official Star Trek Fan Club {Number 118}) Marvin Ostrega asks "...why does the Defiant's registry number still begin with NX when we saw other Defiant-class ships in 'Message in a Bottle'?"
The magazine answers: "Until it becomes absolutely necessary to change the Defiant's registry, she will stay NX. Why? For the simple reason that all new footage, showing the new registry number, would have to be shot. None of the existing footage would be usable, since fans like you would probably spot the old registry number and write letters (admit it, you would!)."
No Chaplain For Star Trek
Beginning with the comments of Chris Ashley in the 8/21/98
Column
Nat Hefferman: Roddenberry's view of religion is certainly pervasive through the Trek universe. In Shatner's book Star Trek Movie Memories, the original story for ST:TMP, entitled The God Thing, involved a sentient machine that threatened Earth while searching for the meaning of existence (I know, I know, it's 42). The story ended with the machine being sent on its way after a long-winded speech by Kirk, stating that mankind had outgrown its need for gods. Needless to say, this idea was considered much too radical by Paramount, and was shelved. It's interesting to see that Gene's view of religion continued to affect the show even after his death. In the TNG 7th season episode Parallels, Worf asks Troi to take care of Alexander in the event that Worf is killed. When Troi asks how this relationship should be characterized, rather than the obvious (to me, at least) "godmother", Work says "stepsister". (Though to be fair to Berman, Braga, et al., they probably wanted to highlight the Troi-Worf relationship rather than Troi-Alexander, for the sake of the story line.) And in regard to STV, Roddenberry is said to have considered that movie to be apocryphal, which when you consider how awful that movie is (Shatner's clumsy direction, a plot with holes you could fit Balok's ship through), is probably just as well...
Recoil-less Glocks
Beginning with the comments of Robert J Wooley in the 8/28/98
Column
Brad Lewis: Regarding the comments of Robert J Wooley in the 8/28/98 Column and Gary Holmes: Re: Pistols on "The X-Files" 9/4 They are both using Sig 228 9mm pistols which is still one of the approved weapons for FBI agents.
I have looked at the scenes in slow motion and can say with some certainty that the pistols do cycle (the slide moves back and forward again to chamber another round). The guns are in fact using blanks. No TV show would be using live ammunition. The blanks have much less recoil than a real cartridge since no projectile is used. If you look closely, there is muzzle flip especially in Scully's case.
The Rumor Of A New Trek Series
Beginning with the comments of Glenn St. Germain in the 9/4/98
Column
George Daley: Regarding Glenn St.-Germain's comments about a new series to replace DS9: I hadn't heard that rumor either, but I believe that's all it is I am now quoting directly from an interview with Rick Berman in the Star Trek Update column found in the most recent issue of the Star Trek Communicator:
Q: Being that this is the last season of Deep Space Nine, has there been any discussion between you and the studio about creating another series to possibly take its place after it's gone?
A: No, none at the moment. My feeling is that I hope Voyager will get a chance to live on its own for a couple of years, which I think is the best thing for it.
My opinion is this: The creators are not above some rumor generating in order to test the level of public interest in such a thing, but since Voyager has never been a ratings juggernaut, they'll want it to be the only game in town for a while. (I definitely like the idea of a Riker-based show though.) BTW, George Takei is still said to be lobbying for HIS own show as well.
Phil: Let me pass a long another viewpoint! In order to get a new show on the air, Trek would have to have the backing of Paramount and Viacom. I have a hard time believe that Berman and company wouldn't be lobbying for another show (read that: more money for them), if another show had a chance of getting made in the Trek climate. Indeed, I have a hard time believing that the lobbying hasn't already occured behind closed door and Paramount said, "No way! No more Trek shows." The fact is . . . with ratings as long as they are, it's difficult for me to believe that Viacom/Paramount is making much on the shows themselves. So . . . I really doubt that the creators have an altruistic feelings toward Voyager and are therefore are trying to shore it up. It's simply all they have left.
Kevin Weiler: I have also heard this rumor of Riker, Worf, Dax, and Nog all getting a series together, but I didn't put much faith in it because when I heard it, it was talking about Jadzia Dax being in the show. Granted, they could change it to Ezri, but that would seem a little rushed.
Also, in an interview with Ira Steven Behr (creative powerhouse behind DS9) in the September/October Cinescape Magazine, he said there were no plans for a new series. I quote from page 49: "There has not been a single mention of a new show," says Behr. "The plan is for Voyager to be the only show. I wish we had that chance. That would have been nice, but on the other hand, we are such a strange little cult show. I like the fact that when I meet [Deep Space Nine Fans], they really like the show and get it. That's a wonderful feeling."
In my humble opinion, I would MUCH rather wait a couple of years for a really good Trek show to come along than have Paramount shove one out the door before it new what it was. They need to "re-invent" the whole Star Trek concept again like they did between TOS and TNG. I think then, when the people down at Paramount have had a good long time to come up with a concept that will really blow us away, they should put out another series.
Phil: Hope springs eternal . . . .!
On to the questions . . .
Jeff Zimmer: Does the Voyager have a "battle bridge" like they have on NG or an auxillary control like they have on the original series? You know, one of those places where its real easy to takeover/run the ship?
Phil: As far as I know, we haven't seen it yet!
Ryan Whitney: As you may know, the Sci-Fi Channel began airing episodes of "Star Trek", in their original broadcast order, on September 1. Each episode is formatted into a 90 minute timeslot, and is shown in its original 51 minute entirety (without syndication cuts). As a "bonus" for interested fans, all-new episode commentary is edited into the timeslot for each episode.
It occurs to me that some of the episode commentary is lacking in substance, which causes me to feel that 90 minutes to get through 51 minutes of an actual episode of "Star Trek" seems a bit long. Additionally, 90 minute timeslots for each episode leaves significant leftover time on 6 or 8 hr (EP) video tapes for multiple episode dubbing. Therefore, I have been wondering why the Sci-Fi Channel airs the episodes this way.
My theory is that when the Sci-Fi Channel decided to air "Star Trek" episodes in their original entirety of 51 minutes, and sacrifice 4 minutes of commercial time in a one hour timeslot, the Sci-Fi Channel felt that it should make up the lost 4 minutes in an additional half hour timeslot. The Sci-Fi Channel could do this by filling the additional half hour timeslot with 19 minutes of commentary and 11 minutes of commercials (instead of 23 minutes of commentary and 7 minutes of commercials). By stretching out the "Star Trek" episode footage over 90 minutes, and editing in 19 minutes of commentary here and there, the Sci-Fi Channel could show its desired amount of commercials for a 90 minute timeslot, without sacrificing episode footage. There are times, during episode airings, when 5 or 6 commercial/commentary minutes seem to pass between consecutive acts of an episode.
The thing that got me thinking about this was the series finale of "Seinfeld", which aired on NBC on 5/14/98, in a 75 minute timeslot (excluding the preceding 45 minute timeslot for series highlights). I recorded the episode and took a count of "show" minutes and "commercial" minutes. It turned out that the episode had about 55 "show" minutes and 35 "commercial" minutes. This meant that of the 15 minutes in excess of an hour timeslot, 8 "show" minutes were added and 7 "commercial" minutes were added. A normal ratio for 15 minutes would be about 11.75 "show" minutes and 3.25 "commercial" minutes. It seems to me that in structuring the episode in a 75 minute timeslot, the network (NBC) placed a higher priority on additional commercial time than additional actual show time.
Phil: And . . . does this surprise anyone? ;-)
Al Fix: I think we need to know -- since the Sci-Fi channel is running TOS uncut (but certainly NOT un-interrupted!), are you taking new nits that aren't in your book? I saw something in the scene where Kirk and Spock try to take Charlie by force, and he knocks them away with his mental powers. When Spock slams into the wall, he actually makes a crack in the wall with his shoulder. His positioning in the following scenes is such that his head covers the damaged area. I wonder, was this visible in the non-restored version?
Phil: What I really need to do at this point is get a bulletin board up so that nitpickers can post the new nits and discuss them without me having to spend hours editing the files. Of course, if I'm going to do a bulletin board then I really need to get someone who'll keep an eye on each section . . .
Richard Poythress: I have a theory about the USS Bozeman's cameo appearances in "All Good Things..." and Star Trek 7 and 8. I think the creators wanted to play with our minds in All Good Things (since it was an alternate universe) so they stuck a ship into the episode that wouldn't fit since it was in fact 80 years old! For some reason the idea persisted in Star Trek 7 with Data's line about the Bozeman. However, the final insult comes in Star Trek 8 when through the comm traffic of the Borg attack we here the Bozeman mentioned again! My theory: the creators are giving us another "47." That is, the Bozeman will be mentioned or alluded to in some way in the rest of the Star Trek films. Kind of a Trekker in joke I guess.
Phil: The Bozeman is a Trek insider joke. If I recall correctly, Brannon Braga is from a little town named Bozeman.
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.