sch@druil.UUCP (Steven C. Higgins) (09/26/85)
Someone mentioned to me that the first Star Trek movie was inspired by a television episode. I didn't think this was so. Ifso which episode was it? Thanks. S. C. Higgins druil!sch
rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (09/26/85)
> Someone mentioned to me that the first Star Trek movie > was inspired by a television episode. I didn't think this > was so. Ifso which episode was it? > S. C. Higgins > druil!sch There's a fair amount of truth in that statement. Recall in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" that V'ger was launched by Earth as Voyager 6. It apparently disappeared from the galaxy, probably through a "black hole" and reappeared elsewhere. It ended up at a planet populated by living machines who gave it the instrumentation it needed to fulfill it's "simple 20th-century programming . . . learn all that is learnable and return that information to your creator." The Star Trek TV episode "The Changeling" has many similarities, in that Nomad was launched by Earth, had an accident with an alien probe, Tan-Ru, they merged and repaired themselves but with altered programming. There are further similarities. Nomad is trying to "sterilize imperfections" and it regards human beings as imperfections. V'ger went several steps further in that it regards only itself and "similar beings" as true life forms. V'ger believes that "carbon-based units" ("Humans, Ensign Perez, us") are infesting both Enterprise and Earth and are keeping its creator from responding. Nomad thought Kirk was its creator. Kirk argues with Nomad until smoke comes out of its ears ("Didn't think I had it in me, did you Spock?" "No, sir.") and it destroys itself. Kirk argues with V'ger through its Ilia-probe to convince it that "we are the creator." Then Commander Will Decker sacrifices himself to, er, "join" with Ilia-V'ger so that they can evolve very quickly into a higher form of existence. That brings us to another connection, the TV episode titled "The Doomsday Machine" featuring William Windom as Captain Matt Decker, father of Will Decker. As you recall, that episode was all about fighting a runaway machine which had great powers. Yet nowhere in the movie are any of these interconnections even hinted at. While a Star Trek fan can enjoy them, I think they should have been brought out so that everyone could enjoy them. I don't mind that ST:TMP has to many similarities to Changeling as long as they don't get revisionistic about the TV series by preventing anyone on the Enterprise from remembering when they were in a similar situation. Apart from all that, ST:TMP works much better dramatically than either "The Changeling" or "The Doomsday Machine" both of which are good ST episodes. The characterizations, the conflicts, and the dialogue are richer and fuller in ST:TMP than at any time earlier in Star Trek production. This is to be expected, as it was a major motion picture rather than a weekly TV series. But the single most important thing about ST:TMP is the revolution in Spock's psychology. The dawning of his awareness and acceptance of his humanity and the emotions that go with it without losing his ability and his discipline to use logic is something that I was waiting for. You only get to see this in the Special Edition with the footage restored which was cut from the theatrical release. Gene Roddenberry laid excellent foundations for the characters Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in ST:TMP. These characters have been sorely abused by Harve Bennett since then. But I digress. The basic answer to the question ("A question!"-COTEOF) is that "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" has several elements in common with one or more Star Trek TV episodes. As to whether they really served to inspire the movie's story is something else entirely. They investigated many possible story lines and Roddenberry seemed to feel that a powerful machine which had developed consciousness and was searching for its "god" which turns out to be humanity was a story that worked especially well. And as Kirk said to Scott in the shuttle, I would also say to Roddenberry: [enter Scottish brogue mode] "You're rrright!" -- "It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess!" Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (09/27/85)
Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: Movie inspiring episodes question Summary: Expires: References: <1619@druil.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Keywords: STAR TREK -- THE MOTION PICTURE was inspired by a TV episode in two senses. First, it's clearly a literary descendant of the Star Trek TV episode "The Changeling," which, like ST--TMP, deals with an Earth space probe which intends to return to Earth because it is confused about who its creator is. Second, the story for ST--TMP is credited to that master of novelizations, Alan Dean Foster. The story was not written specifically for Star Trek, but rather was submitted to Gene Roddenberry under the title "Robots Return" as a proposed episode of Roddenberry's stillborn GENESIS TWO/PLANET EARTH TV series of the early 70s. Oh, excuse me -- I don't have a full-screen editor here. The title should read ROBOT'S RETURN (apostrophe-S). RJS
ccs020@ucdavis.UUCP (Kevin Chu) (09/27/85)
> > > Someone mentioned to me that the first Star Trek movie > was inspired by a television episode. I didn't think this > was so. Ifso which episode was it? > > Thanks. > > S. C. Higgins > druil!sch The Episode is "The Changling", the one with Nomad. Both Nomad and V-ger were earth-launched, damaged in space, and rebuilt into a more powerful "being". -- --Kevin Chu ..ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 /ex
brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown) (09/27/85)
In article <1619@druil.UUCP> sch@druil.UUCP (Steven C. Higgins) writes: > Someone mentioned to me that the first Star Trek movie > was inspired by a television episode. I didn't think this > was so. Ifso which episode was it? Most fans thought it bore quite a resemblance to "The Changeling", hence its fannish title: "Where Nomad Has Gone Before.":-) sb
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (09/28/85)
> > > Someone mentioned to me that the first Star Trek movie > was inspired by a television episode. I didn't think this > was so. Ifso which episode was it? > > Thanks. > > S. C. Higgins > druil!sch
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (09/30/85)
In article <543@riccb.UUCP> rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes: > They investigated >many possible story lines and Roddenberry seemed to feel that a powerful >machine which had developed consciousness and was searching for its "god" >which turns out to be humanity was a story that worked especially well. You have this part of the story slightly wrong. Roddenberry's original idea for the plot of ST:TMP was that it would be about the Enterprise crew encountering God. I don't know whether this was scrapped because they couldn't get a decent script with this plot, or because the studio was worried about a controversy over such a plot. Of course, everyone would have said that this plot was a ripoff of "Who Mourns for Adonais"? -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) (10/01/85)
> That brings us to another connection, the TV episode titled "The Doomsday > Machine" featuring William Windom as Captain Matt Decker, father of Will > Decker. That is COMMODOR Decker, not Captain. I never understood why Kirk had to be reduced from Admiral to Captain after the end of the first movie. Why not just make him a Commodor? He would still be in a higher postion of authority, which is what Star Fleet wanted, and he could still have a command which is what Kirk wanted. There were many a Commodor in the series, but the rank was forgotten after the movies began. > As you recall, that episode was all about fighting a runaway machine which > had great powers. Yet nowhere in the movie are any of these interconnec- > tions even hinted at. Not so. Consider: 1) Will Decker is Matt Decker's son. Seems to be a hint to me. 2) Both men sacrificed themselves for the rest of humanity. 3) The Doomsday Machine was headed toward "the most densely populated part of our Galaxy" (Spock). V'Ger was headed through the most densely populated part of our galaxy straight toward Earth. 4) Both Decker's were in command of the Enterprise for a short length of time before Kirk was responsible for them being relieved. 5) Both machines had traveled from another galaxy before becoming a threat to humanity. Ken Crist
ccs020@ucdavis.UUCP (Kevin Chu) (10/02/85)
[...] > > That is COMMODOR Decker, not Captain. I never understood why Kirk > had to be reduced from Admiral to Captain after the end of the first movie. Was he? I don't remember him being reduced. He wa still Admiral Kirk to Kahn (Khan?) in STII. -- --Kevin Chu ..ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccs020 /ex
rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (10/03/85)
> > Captain Matt Decker, father of Will Decker. > > That is COMMODOR [sic] Decker, not Captain. I never understood why Kirk > had to be reduced from Admiral to Captain after the end of the first movie. Because anyone in command of a vessel is a Captain, whether he holds that rank or not. Therefore, if someone with the service grade of Admiral is in personal command of a starship, it is entirely appropriate to address her as "Captain." > > Yet nowhere in the movie are any of these interconnections even hinted at. > > Not so. Poor choice of words on my part. I meant they are not explicitly mentioned anywhere. The hints are there, for any trekker familiar with the episodes to pick up on. But do you think the average viewer notices the name Decker and says, "Hey, wasn't there a Decker in the planet-eater machine episode?" Or any of the other connections, for that matter? Oh, some astute non-fans have been reminded of similarities between The Changeling and ST-TMP, but only after seeing them one after the other. > 2) Both men sacrificed themselves for the rest of humanity. "Sorry, neither." Matt Decker was nuts and obsessed, which is why he sac- rificed himself. His son did what he did for himself. > 3) The Doomsday Machine was headed toward "the most densely > populated part of our Galaxy" (Spock). V'Ger was headed > through the most densely populated part of our galaxy > straight toward Earth. Where do you get the idea that Earth is anywhere near the most densely popu- lated part of the galaxy? I don't remember any such statement in ST-TMP. > 4) Both Decker's were in command of the Enterprise for a > short length of time before Kirk was responsible for them > being relieved. Strictly speaking, I don't know we can say that Will was in charge of Enter- prise, since he was relieved before it left spacedock. > 5) Both machines had traveled from another galaxy before > becoming a threat to humanity. That is not positively known in either case. -- Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) (10/05/85)
In article <837@cvl.UUCP> kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: > That is COMMODOR Decker, not Captain. I never understood why Kirk > had to be reduced from Admiral to Captain after the end of the first movie. > Why not just make him a Commodor?... Commodore is not a navy rank it is a courtesy title for use when a person with the rank of Captain is aboard a ship which he is not currently commanding. There may be only one person aboard a ship who has the title "Captain". -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter (I am responsible for myself and my dog and no-one else)
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/05/85)
In article <549@oakhill.UUCP> hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) writes: > Commodore is not a navy rank it is a courtesy title for use >when a person with the rank of Captain is aboard a ship which he >is not currently commanding. There may be only one person aboard a >ship who has the title "Captain". >-- >Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales >Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter > Don't confuse title with rank. In the US Navy, the ranks of Captain and Commodore *do* exist. However, it is entirely possible for a Lieutenant to be the "captain" of a ship, and an officer with the rank of Captain to be "Commodore" of a battle group. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
kayuucee@cvl.UUCP (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) (10/06/85)
> [...] > > > > That is COMMODOR Decker, not Captain. I never understood why Kirk > > had to be reduced from Admiral to Captain after the end of the first movie. > > Was he? I don't remember him being reduced. He wa still Admiral Kirk to > Kahn (Khan?) in STII. > > -- > > --Kevin Chu It was my understanding that ST-TMP took place 1-2 years after the Enterprise's five year mission, of which we saw three. Kirk was promoted to Admiral for being one of the few Captains to bring his ship safely back. After the V'Ger story, Kirk became a Captain again and the Enterprise went off on another five year mission. ST-TWOK, however takes place 15-16 years after Kirk first took command of the Enterprise. I got this impression from various articles and the novalizations of both movies. Kenneth Crist
tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (10/07/85)
Okay, I'm confused here. There seems to be some logical consistancy to
the braid worn on uniform sleeves, to wit:
Ensign (no braid)
======== Leutenant (one thick band)
- - - -
======= Leutenant Commander (one thick band, one broken band)
=======
======= Commander (two thick bands)
=======
- - - -
======= Captain (thick, broken, thick)
=======
#######
#######
======= Commodore (e.g. Decker) (solid gold wide band bordered by
two thick bands).
Now Hunter Scales tells us that Commodore is a courtesy title. Why does
Decker have clearly different braid, then? Somebody else told us that
Kirk was really still an admiral after taking command of the Enterprise in
ST-TMP. Why then does he switch to braid showing the rank of captain?
RJS in Toronto.drew@ukma.UUCP (Andrew Lawson) (10/08/85)
> Commodore is not a navy rank it is a courtesy title for use >when a person with the rank of Captain is aboard a ship which he >is not currently commanding. Actually, you are right and wrong. Commodore is not a "rank" in the way that that term is normally used. It is a command position that has no real significance in peace time service (thus the difficulty in finding general understanding). Generally speaking, a commodore is the "captain" of a fleet, as opposed to a vessel. -- Drew Lawson "Parts is parts."
fuji@ssc-vax.UUCP (Glen T Fujimori) (10/08/85)
> > Commodore is not a navy rank it is a courtesy title for use > >when a person with the rank of Captain is aboard a ship which he > >is not currently commanding. > Actually, you are right and wrong. Commodore is not a "rank" > in the way that that term is normally used. It is a command position > that has no real significance in peace time service (thus the difficulty > in finding general understanding). Generally speaking, a commodore > is the "captain" of a fleet, as opposed to a vessel. Funny, I thought a commodore was the Navy's equivalent of a one-star general (others: rear admiral, vice admiral, admiral, and admiral of the navy). -- Glen Fujimori -------------------------------------------------------------- Boeing Aerospace Co, PO Box 3999, M/S 9F-41, Seattle, WA 98124 uucp: ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fuji (206) 251-0197 ______________________________________________________________
nomad@orstcs.UUCP (nomad) (10/12/85)
According to my Navy Basic Traning, Commodore is a Flag rank equal to
Brigadeer General (one star), and is thus an Admiral.
There are two basic types of captain, the rank (O6 in the U.S. Navy) and
the title "captain," which applies to anyone in command of a ship, no matter
if their rank is Chief, Warrent Officer, Ensign, Captain or Admiral, they
are still called Captain on their ship.
btw: part of te problem with the rank of commodore is that it was not
used by the U.S. Navy since WW. II, it was brought back in 1983 or there'bouts.
LEE DAMON FidoNet: 17/1 (CastleNet) {Lee Damon,SysOp}
CSnet: nomad%oregon-state@csnet-relay
UUCP : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!orstcs!nomad
"I've gone out, and I don't think I'm expected back."djl@rayssd.UUCP (Deborah J. Leong) (10/22/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***