posted
Is this two-parter a homage to the Bond films? In this two-parter, we have had the:
*Wealthy financier and villian of the piece. He has a very expensive piece of hardware constructed without the prior knowledge of the heroes - a flying saucer, a wildly implausible idea - the Verteron Array as a WMD, and the demands which mirror the principles of the villian - all non-aliens must leave the planet Earth. In his employ, there are the minions who if named are very dangerous.
*The hero who is a dashing and fertile male - Trip.
*The babe who is attrative and who has emotions for the hero - T'Pol.
If the homage holds up, then Trip will defeat Paxton. The question is how?
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The verteron array must be a subspace weapon of some sort. Unless there are more missing time shots involved, a light speed blast from Mars to the Moon would take at LEAST several minutes to traverse the gap.
I must admit, given your evidence presented here and after reviewing your page, that you make a persuasive argument---one that makes it difficult to maintain my position on this issue. In short, you may be right.
I am not prepared at this time to concede the point, however. The discontinuity between the Taylor novels and onscreen VGR itself makes it equally difficult for me to accept them as canonical. It would seem obvious, given the various inconsistencies, that the production staff never paid any attention to them once Taylor had departed. That in and of itself would seem to argue against their canonicity. It's something of a quandary.
It's mostly the use of the Gaskill/startrek.com FAQ as "proof" that is irksome to me, as there is a great deal of information on that website that is plainly incorrect. Many dates and even the bit in the FAQ about parts of "Yesteryear" being considered canonical seem to have been copied directly from the Okuda works, which are not recognized as canonical by the site. This is an incongruity that makes me wary of trusting the validity of the site in general.
Though I got some of my facts wrong in my previous post, I am not incorrect in stating that Gaskill is not an individual with any kind of control over the production of Star Trek series and movies. His sole job is maintaining the website, and I'm reluctant to accept his word as authoritative. Especially since the whole issue of canonicity is one which fluctuates widely over time. In the 60s, the concept was essentially unknown; In the 70s, anything which Roddenberry approved was considered canonical; In the 80s, anything officially-licensed by Paramount was considered canonical; in the 90s, only live action series and films were considered canonical, plus (apparently) the novels in question and parts of one animated episode. Today, especially with the onscreen franchise heading into an extended hiatus, I doubt the issue will become more clear. But I wouldn't be surprised to see that once the animated DVDs come out, (they're on the way) they might suddenly become considered canonical again.
The rules seem to be rather arbitrary depending on who's "in power." It really makes things terribly confusing. I have my suspicions (and they seem to be borne out by the varying comments of people like Roddenberry, Ronald D. Moore, John Ordover, Richard Arnold, Gaskill, et. al.) that there *is* no definitive canon policy that everyone adheres to. Various people within the Viacom/Paramount hierarchy seem to have different things to say about it.
I can accept that Mosaic and Pathways were considered part of the Canon from the time of their writing to that of Jeri Taylor's departure from VGR, or at whatever point the writers stopped paying attention to them and began contradicitng them, with ease. But to look on them as still holding the same weight at this late date is awkward at best.
-MMoM
P.S. I shall try not to debate you so impulsively or dismissively in the future.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: The verteron array must be a subspace weapon of some sort. Unless there are more missing time shots involved, a light speed blast from Mars to the Moon would take at LEAST several minutes to traverse the gap.
Well, verterons have indeed been associated with subspace phenomena in every previous mention, most prominently the Bajoran wormhole on DS9 and the Hekaran verteron mines from "Force of Nature" (TNG). Why subspace weapons are always *visible* is a mystery, though. But then again, why do we see the stars at warp? So the audience can have a frame of reference for what's going on!
But still, even if the array's fire only moved at lightspeed, it shouldn't have taken more than about 4 minutes, right? It takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth, (1AU) right? And the distance between the Earth and Mars is about 0.5 AUs, right? No? [EDIT: Before y'all rip me to shreds, I realized my mistake in picturing the planets all in a little neat row like Trek always shows, this of course not at all being the way they really are.]
And by the way, verterium cortenide is not a naturally-occurring substance in Trek. It's a composite of polysilicate verterium and monocrystal cortenum. Whatever th'hell that means...
-MMoM
[ May 09, 2005, 12:23 AM: 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
-------------------- 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
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB]I must admit, given your evidence presented here and after reviewing your page, that you make a persuasive argument---one that makes it difficult to maintain my position on this issue. In short, you may be right.
Well, I could just as well be wrong . . . it's just that I don't think so with the information I have available. But if you've got those quotes, I'd love to see them no matter which way they go. Besides a few printed materials here and there that I've obtained over the years, most of the quotes I have on the quote page are simply things that have been referenced online, or as in the case of the Ron Moore quotes just more online stuff that I dug through looking for interesting things.
quote:The discontinuity between the Taylor novels and onscreen VGR itself makes it equally difficult for me to accept them as canonical.
Oh, I concur that in the event of a contradiction, the televised canon beats the "exception" to the canon rule-of-thumb every time.
quote:It would seem obvious, given the various inconsistencies, that the production staff never paid any attention to them once Taylor had departed. That in and of itself would seem to argue against their canonicity. It's something of a quandary.
While I see where you're coming from, I'm looking at it from another way. If I may, it looks as if you're thinking of the VOY production staff as if it were the old organized roundtable setting we hear about for TNG or especially DS9. But, having read about Ron Moore's experience when he ever so briefly joined Voyager, I don't think of the VOY writing team that way at all. It was a much more fractured, non-uniform entity according to his report.
And, of course, there's the fact that (to my mind, as a result of the fractured staff) Voyager hardly ever maintained intra-series continuity, as many have complained about over the years. Thus, to point out that mid-to-late-Voyager might've contradicted something that came before doesn't strike me as proof of much more than the fact that Voyager was often inconsistent, which of course we knew.
quote:It's mostly the use of the Gaskill/startrek.com FAQ as "proof" that is irksome to me, as there is a great deal of information on that website that is plainly incorrect. Many dates and even the bit in the FAQ about parts of "Yesteryear" being considered canonical seem to have been copied directly from the Okuda works, which are not recognized as canonical by the site.
Well, Tim Gaskill has called them "pretty much canon" before, though there was some backpedaling. Not that it matters much . . . we are not privy to where Gaskill got his information on what is or is not canon. The one fellow who managed to get a dialogue going with him way back when didn't ask that.
quote:In the 60s, the concept was essentially unknown; In the 70s, anything which Roddenberry approved was considered canonical; In the 80s, anything officially-licensed by Paramount was considered canonical; in the 90s, only live action series and films were considered canonical, plus (apparently) the novels in question and parts of one animated episode. Today, especially with the onscreen franchise heading into an extended hiatus, I doubt the issue will become more clear.
Well, an evolution of canon policy is a natural part of significant series. This interview, as I recall, describes the general trend of such evolution in popular fandoms . . . just edit->find for "canon" and skim a bit thereafter. (I don't recommend reading the whole thing, since they get a little hoity-toity artsy-fartsy for my tastes. But, the meat of the discussion is interesting.)
quote:The rules seem to be rather arbitrary depending on who's "in power." It really makes things terribly confusing.
Well, that's true. I mean, during the DS9/VOY years you had the DS9 team being forced to pull some guerilla warfare in order to get good Trek past Berman. And then you had the fractured VOY blocs fighting amongst themselves, with the inconstant Braga overseeing them after quasi-constant Taylor's departure.
In the end, the only guy who's been there the whole time has been Berman, but he's not the most consistent person in the world either.
In the end, the best we can do is weigh them by relative rank.
(Incidentally, though, there's a report of Berman having made statements regarding canon in Star Trek Communicator #154, pages 15-16. Anyone know anything about that?)
quote:P.S. I shall try not to debate you so impulsively or dismissively in the future.
No worries. I can get a little trigger-happy given the venomous nature of the Vs. Debates (or even tangles with a couple of TrekBBS Trek tech regulars who act just as irrationally), so I hope I didn't seem impulsive or dismissive, either.
Group hug?
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
*notices Psyliam and Sol System exchanging odd looks*
*quickly backs off*
As for quotes, according to this site, Berman said the following in Communicator #154:
quote:[In response to the question of "Who monitors the Star Trek canon and makes sure that you don't step on already established facts in previous Star Treks?"]
"That is something we have done for 18 years. It is done by different people. We had Richard Arnold dealing with those situations for years, and lately we have Manny Coto who is very aware of the history of Star Trek. We have people like Mike Okuda and Dave Rossi who keep an eye on those things, too. So, obviously, we have to do our best to be true to the canon.
The canon is a very odd thing. What we tend to do is stay true to the movies and the television series. A lot of the other information comes from novels and role-playing games and video games and fan speculation, and we would all go nuts if we tried to coordinate all that. Obviously, there are things that have always been contradictory, but we do our best."
...which really isn't particularly revealing.
Star Trek: The Magazine did an entire article on "Canon Books" in their March 2002 edition, (Volume 2, Issue 11) that prompted a letter from a fan which was briefly addressed by the editors in the May 2002 (Vol. 3, Issue 01) edition. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the former, but I do the latter, so I scanned the relevent query and response.
It may still be possible to order back issues of the mag here, if you have any desire. The article, as I recall, covered the subject fairly extensively and probably had some quotes, though I can't remember any specific ones.
I have no direct quotes from Ordover, but I remember reading posts of his in the Trek Literature forum on the TrekBBS regarding this topic.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
* Hugs Mighty Monkey of Mim * * Sticks tongue out at Sol System and Liam * * Mighty Monkey of Mim files for restraining order against Siegfried * * Siegfried cries *
Sadly, I missed bits and pieces of this episode when it came on due to a huge frikkin' tree roach that was flying around. I never did find the bastard after it dove into my bedding and (presumably) split the scene.
I may have missed this part, but did Archer give permission for Mayweather's ex-girlfriend to come aboard the ship and snoop around with an escort? I mean, she showed up at Mayweather's quarters unattended. And after that, Mayweather seems to take her on a tour of the ship and let's her get up and personal with the shuttlepod while recording. I've seem a lot of documentaries on Naval craft and the like, and they don't really show the equipment or consoles that upclose.
The Nathan Samuels character reminds me a bit of West Virginian Senator Robert Byrd. In his youth, he was a member of the KKK for a short while. I only saw one scene with him (when Archer confronts him with his past), but Samuels seemed really seedy. Is he still involved with Terra Prime, perhaps?
The mining station seemed to take control of the verteron array a little too easily. It extends a clamp and grabs it. Little orange electrical arcs shoot around the contact point, and the soldier claims to have full control of the array.
I saw one scene with Paxton talking to this guy in a suit about something (real specific, I know, but the roach had reappeared) followed by the head soldier coming in to suck up to Paxton. Later, we see the miners clearing away an cave in that appears to have killed that aide. Can something fill me in on what was going on with him?
One would think that Trip and T'Pol would have tried to be a bit more inconspicuous when they infiltrated the mining operation. They were arguing aloud about being lost with all these miners around them. The should just worn big targets on their shirts. Then again, none of the miners seemed to care there were strangers who obviously did not belong in the mines roaming freely amongst them.
-------------------- 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:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: *hugs Guardian 2000*
*notices Psyliam and Sol System exchanging odd looks*
*quickly backs off*
They're just jealous.
quote:As for quotes, according to this site, Berman said the following in Communicator #154
Yeah, that's the claim I want confirmation of . . . that guy isn't exactly reliable with his information, to put things as nicely as possible.
quote:Star Trek: The Magazine did an entire article on "Canon Books" in their March 2002 edition, (Volume 2, Issue 11) that prompted a letter from a fan which was briefly addressed by the editors in the May 2002 (Vol. 3, Issue 01) edition. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the former, but I do the latter, so I scanned the relevent query and response.
Interesting, though I find the "we" disconcerting in regards to inclusion. Any info on who "we" are?
quote:It may still be possible to order back issues of the mag here, if you have any desire. The article, as I recall, covered the subject fairly extensively and probably had some quotes, though I can't remember any specific ones.
I might just do that.
quote:I have no direct quotes from Ordover, but I remember reading posts of his in the Trek Literature forum on the TrekBBS regarding this topic.
I've got Ordover quotes for days, but he's not that relevant as a source. At maximum he's to be considered a story writer for a couple of episodes, which puts him well below people like Sussman, or even unsung staff writers.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
"One would think that Trip and T'Pol would have tried to be a bit more inconspicuous when they infiltrated the mining operation."
I wondered the same thing. I mean, if you're trying to infiltrate an organization that has stolen your DNA and made a baby with it, don't you think they might know what you look like? Especially if you use your real name?
[ May 10, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No more than you can expect a woman with a HOLE in her abdomen to be able to get into an important multispecies summit room without identifcation or suspicion, where absolutely everyone else in that room was wearing tags...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
