ensign_beedrill

Only 20 episodes were filmed for season one though... :blink:

 

Would you please list the 24 episodes? :)

Well, the official site says that there were sixteen episodes in season one. Which does seem to correspond to your "twenty episodes for season one originally, and then four taken away" thing you said earlier. And it does look like "The 37's" was the season two premiere. So it looks like your analysis is right, Captain. Perhaps they released the tapes a little differently than they aired the episodes? It's possible.

Well, I went to STARTREK.COM and found the Voyager episode listings for Season One. It looks as though Voyager started in January of 1995, so it only ran for half a year that year. As for why it started at the beginning of the year, I don't know about that.

I could of sworn the name of the site I used to go to was battlefleet.net but it doesn't exist. They had so much info concerning the history of every class of starship.

Well, I did a quick Google search and this site is the only one that showed up. It's probably not what you're looking for, but it does seem to have a lot of information on different ships. I hope you find that site. I hate it when a favorite web site of mine disappears.

Yes, an asteroid is going to hit the Earth. Aside from probability and scientific facts...

John describes his vision:

"The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea."

--Revelation 8:8 (NIV)

Check this site out. It talks about asteroids and what the Bible says about this particular vision. It's pretty interesting.

I love this song! I'm not from the South or anything, but it gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling, anyway. It makes me wish I had a place like this I could call "home." ^-^;; I really like the sound of this song and the way the music flows. I especially like the banjo (that is a banjo... right?). The lyrics and the chorus especially just produce pictures in my mind that are vivid and hazy at the same time. I've also heard Buddy Jewel's song "Help Pour Out the Rain" on the radio, and I like this guy's music so far. ^-^

This was inspired by the "Is Spock the first Vulcan in Starfleet?" thread over in the TOS board.

I know a lot of people have voiced concern about how the Vulcans in Enterprise are being portrayed as arrogant and condescending. I even had problem with that. It just doesn't seem to fit their character, from what we've seen of them in the series depicting eras further down the timeline.

But this particular thread about Spock got me thinking. Whether it be a Star Trek fact, or just something widely accepted as true among fans, and for the purposes of this topic, Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Why, after so long a partnership, would a Vulcan choose to join Starfleet? In nearly a hundred years between the Enterprise era and the Star Trek era would there be no Vulcans joining Starfleet?

It doesn't make sense. Unless you look at the Vulcans on Enterprise. They clearly look down upon Starfleet. It's not openly stated, but it is heavily implied. They see it as an immature leap for Humans. They certainly didn't approve of the whole Enterprise mission, and every time we see them, there is some hint of how it's too early for the Humans to be out in space.

It would follow, then, that it is only logical for Vulcans not to join Starfleet, since they disapprove of it so much. Why would they join a venture they see as immature and inappropriate?

After thinking about this for a while, I don't have much of a problem with the way Vulcans are being portrayed in Enterprise. I don't know if the creators intended to set it up this way, but it does all fall into place and it all makes sense. This is just more proof that the creators do know what they're doing, and they're not trying to decimate the timeline... like many Enterprise doomsayers claim.

Opinions, anyone?

I was watching "Q2" again the other day, and I got a great idea for this thread. I would tear out Neelix's vocal cords sew his mouth shut.

Gee... that sounds violent, doesn't it? Well, I'd do it like Q... I wouldn't hurt him or anything. But I cheered when Q did it. I had been waiting for the day when someone finally shut him up. Oh, glorious day! Too bad Q had to undo it. I really would have liked the silence in the mess hall.

Heh... but Neelix wasn't really that bad. He's my favorite character to make fun of! And he could be really sweet sometimes. He could be annoying... but he could be sweet. I still wouldn't spend a week in a shuttle with him. I wouldn't eat his food, either.

Yeah, I've noticed that La Forge has rolled under that door a lot. I think it's so funny. In fact, it has become a source of humor and jokes for my sister and me.

*Do you consider it worth watching?

Oh, definitely.

*Would you advise people new to the franchise to give it a look?

I sure would.

*Is it exciting or dull for a modern audience?

Star Trek is very exciting. A good series like this remains just as exciting today as it was when it first came out.

*Is it still the best or is it out of date rubbish that deserves to be forgotten?

It is still just wonderful. The episodes are so full of thought-provoking meaning. The stories Star Trek told were real and entertaining, and they still are. The characters are believable and lovable. I know it is said a lot, but the relationship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is so unique and special, and no series has created a bond quite like that. TOS episodes seem to flow so easy and smooth. There are so many underlying subtleties that are hardly noticeable, but add substance. Star Trek may be "old," but the stories it tells, the characters it presents, and the overall "feel" it creates are all still relevant in today's world. Star Trek is built around ideals; and these ideals are still sought today.

*Are you a modern fan that is interested in seeing more of this show?

I started getting into Star Trek almost two years ago. My interest was started by TNG, and later, Voyager. I had also seen a couple of TOS episodes. For the longest time, though, all I could watch was Voyager, because I didn't have cable TV. So I suppose you can call me a "modern" fan. As soon as I got cable, I found out when TOS came on and watched it. It appealed just as much, and probably even more, then the previous series I had seen. I think I've seen most of the TOS episodes. There might be one or two I haven't caught.

The special effects on TOS might not be as good as those today, but that's a bad reason for not watching the show. The show isn't about the effects, and it shouldn't rely on them. Effects only serve to enhance the show. What really makes the show is the story, the characters, and the ideas being presented. I think TOS is the most creative series, in many aspects, and that is probably partly because the effects couldn't run the whole show.

The Horta might just look like a guy crawling around underneath a big, shaggy carpet, but "The Devil in the Dark" is a wonderful, exciting, and enjoyable episode that still has many messages, ideas, and themes applicable to today.

I voted Voyager.

Voyager felt much more homey and personal to me. It was a small ship, compared to the Enterprise-D, there weren't a lot of people on it, and that made it all the more personal and inviting. I love the style of most of the rooms that are used frequently. I like the design of the bridge, the setup of engineering with the neat-looking warp core, the simplicity of the sickbay, the wire framed walls of the holodecks, and the inviting atmosphere that the mess hall puts out. Voyager is nothing too fancy on the inside, nor is it bare and vapid. It is simple, stylistic, and appealing. Of all the ships featured in a Star Trek series, Voyager is the one I would most like to be able to call home.

Check this out: 3D Imaging... no glasses required

This all sounds pretty neat. Holodecks might not be so farfetched any more! What do you all think about this?

Starfleet HQ's holodecks?

 

How would you know what they are using?

I mean when do u see them show any holodeck back at the HQ?

In the episode "Pathfinder," Barclay uses the holodeck at the research facility at Starfleet Headquarters to interact with the Voyager crew. Also, in "Inside Man," a holodeck at headquarters is used to fool the Ferengi.

As for Voyager's holo-technology, I think it looked much more advanced than that of TNG. In TNG, it was yellow lines in a wall. Voyager's looks more like it could actually "do something." I also think it was a much better design, much easier to look at, and just much more... "aesthetically pleasing" as T'Pol would say.

Aw, I loved that movie. It was pretty good. And very sad, too. *cries*

Did anyone notice this scene - when the bad guys are taking over Archer is telling Trip to go along  - Trip starts to ask a question and Archer grabs his arm - jerks him around and basically talks to him like he's a juvenile delinquent.  Was that necessary - would he talk to another officer like that?

Well, I did notice it, and for a second I did think that was a little rough. Then I saw Archer's quick glance at a guard who stood in the engineering room. The camera switched to show him standing there and then came back to focus on Archer and Tucker. And then I figured that it was probably just an over dramatic show for the guy who was standing there. To sort of convince him, you know? Then, in a softer tone, he added "This isn't over yet." I just got the sense that he was trying to fake going along on the outside while rebelling and scheming on the inside.

I probably won't be able to make it. Have fun, everyone!

What has Wil been up to lately? I havent seen him around much in anything

Wil Wheaton is focusing on writing at the moment. He released his first book, Dancing Barefoot , last year and sold 3,000 copies in less than five months under Monolith Press. He recently signed a three book deal with O'Reilly & Associates, a major publisher. He is currently working on Just a Geek, an autobiography. If you want to keep up with him, you can visit is web site. He's a talented writer, and I enjoy reading his "blog."

I like Microsoft, Windows, and Bill Gates.

Windows is great. It's very user-friendly, and I like that. I've never used Linux, but I've heard some people say it's not that easy to use. One of my friends even had to read a "Linux for Dummies" book to be able to use it properly. Windows is not that hard at all. And now, with XP, it's quite stable. Ever since I got XP, my computer has not crashed or frozen once. (It used to crash and freeze all of the time.) Windows works fine for my purposes, and I don't feel like I need to switch.

Bill Gates is an awesome businessman, and I do not think he's running a monopoly. Just the fact that there is Linux and it's growing fast shows that there is competition. There is also Macintosh out there. If Microsoft has a larger share of the market, it is most likely because it offers the better product. Once people stop liking it then it's share will shrink. But people like Microsoft products... that's why Bill Gates is doing so well.

And... I might be wrong with this... but if it is easy to write a virus for Windows... then wouldn't it be easier to write one for Linux... since you can actually see the code that Linux is using? I mean, if you know exactly what's in it, then you know exactly where and what to attack.

For anyone who was wondering along with me, I finally found out the answer. I got myself down to the library as soon as I could and found a book called Gene Roddenberry the Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek by Joel Engel. Right there on page forty-nine it says that his brother, Bob, was four years younger than him and his sister, Doris, was five years younger than him. So Gene was the oldest.

The reason I wanted to know was because I had been reading about birth order and how it can shape a person's personality, and I was wondering if it had any sort of effect on Gene Roddenberry. By researching the traits I was able to guess that he was the oldest before I even knew this fact. A lot of his accomplishments and personality traits do match up with those that have been found to be common among first born children.

I figured this would make for an interesting topic, if anyone has something to say or add or if you'd like to do a little research yourself.

Well, I've done some more research and I've found out that he had a younger brother named Bob. He also had a sister named Doris, but I still don't know if she's younger or older. Can anyone help me?

I need to know if Gene Roddenberry had any brothers or sisters and if they were older or younger than him. I've been searching for it on the Internet, and so far, the only thing I've come across is a small reference to a brother. But it didn't say anything about being younger or older. If anyone has this information, or knows of a web site that references it, I would appreciate it if you could share it with me.

Around 1400, the pronunciation of most English long vowels was changed, in what is called the Great Vowel Shift. Also, The 'e' at the end of words like "take" was no longer pronounced. By around 1500, Middle English had taken an early form of Modern English. Even though there were many changes in pronunciation, the printers of the time continued to use the old Middle English spellings. The 'k' and the 'e' in "knave" were kept, even though those letters were no longer pronounced. This is why there are a lot of inconsistent spellings in modern English.

The funniest thing I find in all of this is the word "phonics." Of all the words in the English language, you would at least expect this one to be spelled phonetically.

Fonix.

No Way, A Actual Picard...

Hey, is there a Willliam Riker, and A Wesley Crusher????

that would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. See my previous post.

It is just to easy to time travel, I have always felt as if time travel was totally impossible, there has not even been an attempt at it in the TNG or any of the other 24'the century series. Yet it is not very hard in the 23rd century..

It's not easy. It is very, very difficult and extremely dangerous. It is much too risky to try (unless of course in dire circumstances or you are Kirk... or both). Remember the discussion Kirk and McCoy had? McCoy was very skeptical about going back in time. He was afraid they might get too close to the sun and pretty much said that the plan was crazy... insane. That sort of shows how dangerous it is.

It also involves very complex calculations with many variables. When they were going back to their own time, the mass of the ship had changed because of the added water and whales. Spock couldn't get exact figures and had to guess. I wouldn't hinge my life on a guess just to travel back in time, even if it was Spock's guess. Spock's guess got them crashing into Earth. They almost collided with the Golden Gate Bridge. It's lucky they landed in the water... they nearly missed hitting land and taking out several buildings and many people.

It's not easy at all to time travel this way. Most captains probably wouldn't consider this option because of all of the chances involved. One slightly off calculation and WHAM! you're frying in the sun.

That's all good and well, testing on animals to make treatments for diseases, I don't mind that. What I don't understand is "animal rights." Where do animals have rights? Is there anything in the Constitution about animals having rights? And what rights are these? Of course, everything has a right to live, but I don't see animal rights people complaining each time I swat a fly. That fly is an animal, with as much right to live as everything else. And, in fact, if these monkeys die as a result of testing for cures to diseases, that is a much better death than the one I just gave the fly. The monkey died to better medicine. The fly died because I think flies are gross.

What really makes me mad is that I hear no news of animal rights people protesting frog dissection in schools. The poor frogs! Let's say that every three students in a class get one frog. There are twenty seven people in the class. That's nine frogs! Now... how many classes are there in the world that dissect frogs? Thousands! Even if only a thousand classes dissect frogs, that's 9,000 frogs! 9,000 frogs a year, folks, and more, because I'm sure there are more than a thousand classes dissecting frogs. In five years, that's over 45,000 frogs! For what? If students must know what the inside of a frog looks like, put a few pictures in the biology book. Bring in a few plastic models. Stop killing the frogs!

Personally, I think it all has to do with the "cuteness" factor. The more "cute" an animal is, the more attention it gets. Take monkeys, for example. Lots of people think monkeys are cute, therefore, they get a lot of rights. I happen to think monkeys are ugly and just plain nasty-looking. However, I think frogs are extremely cute. But lots of people think they're slimy and that they give you warts (they don't). Most people don't think flies are cute... that's why it's OK to kill them. I personally feel that they are very interesting-looking creatures... they just do gross things. That's why we eat cows. It's because cows aren't cute.

Sorry about all of that... it's just that sometimes I think animals get more basic rights than we do. It's not that I hate animals and I want them all dead. I don't. They are a very important part of our ecosystem. Saving endangered species is wonderful and I want to save the rainforest. I really do feel sad about the frogs dying and I really do feel kind of bad after killing a scorpion or a spider. I just think sometimes people go a little too far.

[Edited to fix a typo...]

A very interesting poem. I remember hearing it somewhere once... But it never really states that all those people and animals are actually going to St. Ives, save for the one. So is this one of those "trick" questions, where it makes you think really hard, and then it turns out that the answer was really easy and you didn't have to do all of that hard thinking at all?

Like, "The Mississippi River is the longest river in the United States. How do you spell it?" And you stand there stuttering over 'S'es and 'P's and 'I's, but it turns out the answer is really "I-T."

Wow, those are some pretty big numbers. I wonder where numbers that high ever come in handy. They're kind of hard to comprehend! I guess some of them would be useful when measuring interstellar distances and things like that. But... googolplex... that's huge! I couldn't even imagine such a large number!

That's interesting about the perfect numbers... I didn't know that before. But I guess you're not counting the number itself as one of the factors... or else there would be no perfect numbers at all. Curious... I wonder why they chose to include one but omit the actual number. Do you know anything about that? I guess the first perfect number would be six, then. Interesting.