rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (12/16/83)
The extent to which some people go to explain
the goings on in Star Trek episodes is unreal.
I can only hope that all of that imagination
is also being put to some productive use!
You know as well as I that Walter Koenig was
on vacation or something when Space Seed was made.
What's unreal about it? Do you think that these people (I suppose I am one)
cannot tell reality from fiction? It's a pleasant pastime, it's challenging
and enjoyable. It does have productive use; imagination, like most abilities,
atrophies if not exercised. This can be critical to artists and theoretical
scientists. It has also had the added benefit of making Star Trek the most
documented fictional universe ever conceived. Thousand of Trek fans over close
to two decades now have contributed creative thought to make Star Trek more
believable than anyone would have thought possible. The producers of the
Star Trek movies have benefited from this effort in that some of these details
have helped in story development. This in turn makes Star Trek ever more so
believable and makes being a Trek fan that much more enjoyable. And Walter
Koenig wasn't on vacation--"Space Seed" aired about two-thirds of the way
through the first season, that is about February, 1967. Chekov appeared in
the second season, the first episode of which aired in September, 1967.
. . . . But because
it's ST, it has to be perfect, right? Even real
life isn't as clean cut and technical as you
guys make out the Star Trek universe to be.
You're right, Star Trek is more "technical" than real life. I do not think
there is a single successful fiction writer who would say that it could be
any other way. Fiction HAS to be "better" than real life if it is to work.
. . . . but you
have to realize that at some point you can make
a show or movie just so technically perfect that
nobody but nuclear engineers would enjoy it.
Robert Perlberg
philabs!rdin!rdin2!perl
I disagree. As long as you do not sacrifice the character development, story,
or any of the other central trappings of fiction, I do not think that making
the story consistent detracts from the experience at all. I believe it adds
to it. And as far as your slur on nuclear engineers, you are fortunate you
didn't make that comment on net.physics--if you had, you wouldn't have gotten
flamed at, you would've been irradiated.
Another direct order from the bridge of the U.S.S. Garp,
--
Roger Noe UUCP: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
ARPA: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe@berkeleyfriedman@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/20/83)
#R:rdin:-33500:uiucdcs:24900024:000:1854 uiucdcs!friedman Dec 19 10:19:00 1983 /***** uiucdcs:net.startrek / rdin!perl / 7:29 pm Dec 16, 1983 */ I'm the last person that anybody would call a harsh realist, but come on guys, gimme a break. The extent to which some people go to explain the goings on in Star Trek episodes is unreal. I can only hope that all of that imagination is also being put to some productive use! /* ---------- */ I most heartily agree. It can be fun to try to "explain" Star Trek features, but I think Trek fans tend to overdue it -- a lot. Many of the things that need explanation, such as inconsistent elapsed time as the Enterprise flies around the galaxy, simply cannot be explained except by admitting that the writers weren't careful enough of such details. The fan explanations may be fun for some, but they're unofficial and are usually ignored as further developments (films, books, etc.) come out. The many "official" novels don't even begin to agree on such things. Witness the remarks in the newest, "The Wounded Sky", to explain leaving the galaxy and getting by the famous Barrier. Duane explains away the effects from the 2nd pilot episode, but overlooks or ignores at least two other episodes: Is There In Truth No Beauty, in which the Enterprise enters the Barrier but no one goes mad or gets silver eyes or delusions of godhood; and the one (can't think of the name) in which extra-galactic aliens take over the ship, reduce the crew to styrofoam blocks, and attempt to leave the galaxy, with every expectation of getting past the barrier. I think Duane should have just ignored the matter, though I also think it did her novel no harm. I found her explanations of how warp drive works to be interesting, but of course, they're completely different from and at odds with the explanations other Trek fans have published. I think such things just should not be taken very seriously.
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (12/23/83)
I'm the last person that anybody would call a harsh realist, but come on guys, gimme a break. The extent to which some people go to explain the goings on in Star Trek episodes is unreal. I can only hope that all of that imagination is also being put to some productive use! You know as well as I that Walter Koenig was on vacation or something when Space Seed was made. As far as Scotty bringing the dead guy up to the bridge, it was just for the purpose of making us feel closer to the action. It's a standard dramatic tool that the director has used in hundreds of other films. In fact, if it WAS in any other film (like maybe one about a WW II battleship) noone would even think twice about it. But because it's ST, it has to be perfect, right? Even real life isn't as clean cut and technical as you guys make out the Star Trek universe to be. Now, don't get me wrong, I like nit-picking Science Fiction shows as much as the other guy, but you have to realize that at some point you can make a show or movie just so technically perfect that nobody but nuclear engineers would enjoy it. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!rdin2!perl