Will anyone answer any of my feverish questions!?! ;o)
Another question, I noticed in some episodes Sulu or Chekov or Uhura are missing - and at critical times... (not talking about real life here) but, why wouldn't they be on the Bridge then?? I doubt that they just sleep through some of the really important emergencies... that require their expertise?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Maybe they weren't heads of their departments at the time. Maybe the reason they all became so close is because Kirk liked working the night shift & they had that duty assignment. For all we know, there were more senior officers for helm, nav, & comm. I mean, we saw the chief of security ONCE in 3 years, & he turned out to be a LCDR.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I would point out that it's Spock's family name that's unpronouceable. Whether or not it's his "first" name, who knows?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Senior Staff missing could be due to the person being on leave, or temporary assignment, or even Kirk wanting some of the B-list crew members some experience. If he uses the same people all the time, no-one else will ever learn. That's why the landing party is always completely different. All the time.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, if a red-shirt can make it through a couple episodes they get a medal or something don't they? They'd certainly deserve one.
Incidentally, to attempt to ignore one Trek series to focus on another which might be more internally consistent reeks of fundamentalism and literalism. It's ignorant, intolerant and stupid. If you insist on continuing to do so, Proteus, you can add me to your list.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I just read on the devil's TrekBBS that Pocket is planning a TOS relaunch that will have multibook series that reveal details of circumstances surrounding each episode, backup characters, etc.. Errand of Vengeance, the second story arc, will have details about the Klingon conflicts the took place before and during Errand of Mercy.. cool, huh?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If executed well, yes. PB seems to be doing a decent job lately, with NF and DS9 relaunch. Depends on the writers, as always.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
DS9 relaunch has had near-universal acclaim.
NF.. people either love or hate Peter David. There seems to be no middle ground.
SCE, now that it's coming out in paperback, is enjoyable, even if the stories are short.
Other really notable PB books lately were: Diplomatic Implausibility -- Keith R.A. DeCandido Immortal Coil -- Jeffrey Lang
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ahem... getting back to the theme of this post...
I recently watched a few episodes of TOS as well. All I could say was "wow".
I think what sets it apart (and in front) of other sf series - both contemporary and present (and I am including other Trek series) is two-fold. First is the sense of wonder. No other show has captured it - few try. The other is the sense of family. Mind you, I was watching TOS when I was 6 - back in 1969...
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I've always liked TOS; it's what got me into Trek in the first place. I like the feeling og being out there, exploring; I don't think any of the other series (although I like them all) has really captured that.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
What I like most about Star Trek (the one and only) is the absence of B stories. Every scene was important and moved the story forward. I get the sense that some later series didn't have enough faith in their stories to sustain an episode for 45 minutes. I'm not talking about B-stories meant to support an underlying arc, but B stories that cut away from the main story so that Data could groom his cat, or something.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
