posted
Sisko was inside a mini-jeffries tube in, um, For The Uniform, wasn't he? Er...wait...not that one. The last Eddington episode, anyway.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
"Blaze Of Glory."
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I read the script that is on line at various sites for "Broken Bow". As I read the script, I noted two oddities. If the script is a fake, then we can ignore these oddities. If not, fooey.
Oddity One Dr. Cochrane is recording a speech that the SS Enterprise NX-01 crew play decades later in the year 2121. This is thirty-two years before 2153, the year for "Broken Bow". The premiere occurs ninety years after first contact in 2063.
Reason for this being an oddity? The canon evidence states that Dr. Cochrane disappeared in 2217. ("Metamorphosis")
Oddity Two The script refers to the scout parties as 'Away Teams', not 'Landing Parties'.
Reason for this? In Star Trek, the term is 'Landing Party (ies)'.
posted
I see an oddity in the fact that they are using "Phase Pistols." While this doesn't conflict with the canon evidence for when phasers were invented, it does conflict with the evidence that LASERS were in use by Starfleet prior to Phasers. Why isn't ENT using LASERS?
I also don't see how Starfleet can have been in existence 15 years prior to ENT if the Enterprise herself has a registry of NX-01. Did starfleet exist for over a decade without any ships?
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe it's the first to have an NX registry? The others could have had registries of "FOO-42" or "PLEH-666", or some such.
"Phase pistols" are apparently just phasers under an old name. At one point in the script (not in dialogue, though), one is actually referred to as a "phaser".
The "away team"/"landing party" thing is okay. Terminology changes, and it's entirely possible for it to change, and then change back.
And I think the "2117" reference is actually a "150 years ago" reference, so there's no problem there.
posted
Please note that the tem "away team" is never used in the actual dialogue parts of the script. We will never hear it used by any of the characters, if the episode is filmed as written.
Similarly, at one point on Rigel X, the heroes are said to draw their phase pistols, and at another point to use their phasers. In fact, at this point of the story, they are packing their old-fashioned plasma pistols. This is a minor error on the part of the script proofreader, but will not create any sort of problem in the actual aired version, since it does not carry over to the dialogue.
As for the date of Cochrane's speech, I thought the recording will be played in 2151, not 2153, making the date of original recording either late 2118 or early 2119? Still not 2117, but closer to the mark - but it makes one wonder. Cochrane disappeared into space very soon after starting this project. Why? Was he really feeling that the end was nigh and, knowing that he'd never see the project succeed, wanted to go out with a bang rather than die out in the middle of a prolonged failure?
Or did he flee from somebody or something? Did the Vulcans play a role in this?
posted
My main problem with the term "away team" is that it's always sounded bloody stupid. "Landing Party" makes much more sense given at this time they're still supposedly dependent on orbital shuttles to reach the surface of a planet.
And as for "phase pistols" versus "lasers," my expert opinion is that those things in "The Cage" didn't behave anything like lasers. It could just have been a term that came into use for a while.
posted
The only evidence comes from the "Chronolgy". Its first basic assumption is that "the original Star Trek series is set 300 years in the future of the first airings of the episodes." Since "Metamorphosis" was the second episode of the second season, that places it in the latter half of 2267.
Of course, if you accept what is spoken on-air as canon, the Chronology's basic assumption has to be tossed out the airlock. After all, in "Space Seed", Kirk told Khan he'd been sleeping for two centuries. That places it in 2196 (in STII Khan said the Botany Bay had been lost in space since 1996).
posted
In then comes the other dating information that TargetEmployee started a thread on from "Who Mourns For Adonois?" Going from the information there, Star Trek takes place sometime in the 3000s given our current knowledge of Greek history. Or there's "All Our Yesterdays" when the Enterprise is thrown back to 1968 and accidentally disrupts the timeline by picking up Colonel Christopher. Going by this episode, around 2168 is the episode's ending time.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:The "away team"/"landing party" thing is okay. Terminology changes, and it's entirely possible for it to change, and then change back.
NO! There are already far too many instances of TBTB drawing from TNG instead of TOS. The "It switched back" excuse works once maybe twice, but gets real old real quick. If they don't want to use TOS terminology(or whatever) fine, then make up new stuff that is different from both series.
[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Obi Juan ]
-------------------- "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It?s us. Only us." Rorschach
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The whole problem with continuity between the series has been there since the beginning. Hell, TOS couldn't make up its mind whether it was set in the 22nd, 23rd, or 28th Centuries! (Don't believe me? Go check out "The Squire Of Gothos" again.)
It isnt't only dates, either. Pity poor Chief O'Brien. His rank's gone up and down more timesthan an elevator.
Then again, you can't really blame the folks back on the original Trek. They had no way of knowing their work would be picked to death by us noble nitpickers for the next thirty-plus years.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
posted
However, Icheb's line in VOY "Q-2" clears it all up by saying that Kirk's 5-year mission was from 2265 to 2270. Alas! Alas!
Obi Juan: I feel your pain. I hate that whole explanation of "it was always this way except for the one period of a decade or two in the late 2200's." It just burns me.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
