posted
Placeholder. I've moved since the hiatus began, and I can't yet figure out how to work the damn digital cable box in tandem with my VCR. So until I can find a <100meg download, we'll leave this open.
What to look forward to? More spheres! More Computer shenanigans! Enterprise getting boarded again! The list goes on!
posted
At least the bio bombs each alien carries reminds me of the Kazon bomb in ST: Voyager's Basics Part 1.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We actually get to see Enterprise as far outgunning the slien of the week's ships!
It's good for the Zealots that they never ran into the Xindi, huh? They'd be toast.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I wonder if the computer has an UNDELETE button.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Probably not. We know that the Trek shows are produced mainly on Mac-based systems. For all the hatred of Microsoft, it's a hell of a lot easier to retrieve deleted data on a DOS system. Another case of writers writing what they know.
posted
Well, since the prefix for 1021 is 'Z', and the prefix for 1024 is 'Y', perhaps 'X' is the prefix for 1027. Don't know what it would stand for, but it makes a little bit of sense, at least.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Meh, you can still use the "UNDO" command on the Mac...
As far as tech goes, I noticed that all the Starfleet rifles were using the now-familiar phase pistol-type beam. And the MACO's pulse rifles are definitely capable of stunning someone, seeing as how the head zealot whats-his-name got shot by a MACO and survived for the utterly predictable and pointless final scene.
What I'd like to know is how the aliens managed to cram in 23 people into their tiny ship! They must've been crammed in there like sardines, considering the relative size when the ship was seen docked with the NX-01...
And was it just me, or did the alien-ship-of-the-week look like the nose section of a Kazon raider?
According to the handy metric reference I have bookmarked, there is no such metric prefix with the abbreviation "X". So either it was an honest goof-up (which would be believable but deplorable -- can't these guys do some research if they're using real-world terms?), or there's a new prefix invented in the future (or one that's not on the tables I've seen).
Personally, I'm just glad that they got rid of the god-awful "quads" unit that got bludgeoned to death on Voyager...
Were all of the surviving captives supposed to be in those two shuttlepods? I find that unlikely considering we saw a MACO in the one shuttle as Archer and whats-his-name got out on the surface. This is just one more example of the utter stupidity in how ship-to-shore movement is handled on this show.
I did like the very creative use for the transporter in this episode, though! It was a slight gamble that the aliens didn't have transporter tech, but it's paid off. (Aside: have we seen ANYONE, including the Vulcans, using transporters? Why would only the Humans have developed it?)
Finally, not exactly a tech issue, but pertinent -- has anyone had the foresight to have a running count of how many MACOs have been seen on the ship? I don't have the opportunity to tape and rewind every episode since the beginning of the season for reference, but someone else might have the time (and patience) to try to compare some of the nameless extras we've seen in MACO uniforms. I think it's clear that there are at least a dozen or two on the ship, suggesting that quite a number of people left the ship in "The Expanse". T'would be good to know just how many have been seen. (And assuming it can be kept to a logical number, unlike Voyager's endless supply of redshirts and disposable shuttles. )
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the woman MACO in this ep was Mackenzie. And the black guy was also seen in "Carpenter Street".
On another note.. the crew weren't expecting any hostilies when the Triannon took over the ship, yet the MACOs were fully geared up when shoved into their quarters?
All in all, I do believe the MACO cast is fairly consistent. But for all the fuss made about them before the start of the season, they haven't really had any significant screentime yet. Apart from their names, we know virtually nothing about them OR their organization.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The way it works in production is that they tend to hire a number of actors as permenant extras to create the illusion of constant background crew members or such; this explains Lt. Ayalla on Voyager, or DS9's Morn. The main actors' body doubles also tend to find work as such (after all, they're already wearing the uniforms for lighting and composition purposes). In the case of the MACO extras, they are probably also hired with an eye on stunt experience, given how many no-dialogue action scenes they're in.
Bringing this to the MACOs on Enterprise, since regular stunt people are expensive (anyone remember Dan Madalone, who was almost every male extra killed on TNG and VOY?), the small number of people dressed as MACOs on the ship are constant; this suggests a small contingent, since the same extras are in most of the action scenes we've seen so far. Whoever's running continuity on the ship this time is doing a fair job (at least within the series itself), so they'd probably be able to tell you. Of course, they are deliberately not telling us to avoid the backlash when they DO screw up; we have the Voyager headaches to prove it.
posted
There are a couple of pages out there tracking the MACOs, but they're hardly ever updated and are incorrect on a couple of points. I've actually been stockpiling MACO pictures to do one myself, if you can wait a couple of days. 8)
"According to the handy metric reference I have bookmarked, there is no such metric prefix with the abbreviation "X". So either it was an honest goof-up (which would be believable but deplorable -- can't these guys do some research if they're using real-world terms?), or there's a new prefix invented in the future (or one that's not on the tables I've seen)."
No, there isn't a real 'X' metric prefix. But, fifteen years ago, there was no 'Y' or 'Z', either. I'm sure they intended it to be a fake prefix, just like how they used "quads" rather than bytes in the TNG-era series.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Might be overlooking the obvious. Xb could be ten-bytes. I expect that Xbytes is what will become kilo-quads in the future.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
