Well yes, a very quiet episode. Not much to say actually.
Why did Eriksson (sounds Swedish) say that the transporter "changed starfleet" - what about the rest of Earth and it's colonies?
I didn't like the camera work at the end with the 'zooming in to the actor' bit in the 'tense moments'. And the handy-cam look. I could stand the handy-cam effect but NOT the overly-dramatic zoom in. Quiet cheesy. Who directed this episode?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally written at www.triphammered.com : Should have known David Straiton was the director, from the strange angles to the bizarre jump-zooms. He's not a great cinematographer; why do they keep inviting him back?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, that comment about transporters changing Starfleet made no sense. In three years aboard one ship they still only use it when there's no other choice.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Was he talking about the current transporter, or his theoretical quantum transporter? If the former, then yeah, that didn't make much sense. If the latter, then he means that there won't be much need for many ships.
Of course, even if he did say the former, it may just be his fondness for his invention is coloring his perception of things.
B.J.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I'm sure that even though we don't see it frequently, the transporter is likely used for non-bio transport all the time. Supply restock for example, it would be alot quicker to beam things into the ship than have to make shuttle runs. I'd venture that even if the ship doesn't, bases probably have larger cargo transporters that would beam things directly into Enterprise's cargo bays.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Ahhh but he was talking about his original transporter... so if he was boasting - why stop at Starfleet and why not say "it changed humanity/Earth" - is it because they wanted to say "The Federation" - but they can't so just changed it to Starfleet as if it was interchangable!?!