xenexian

For me, it's not so much what my family thinks, they pretty much just tolerate me, it's my co-workers that think I'm a bit of a freak. My studio has been christened, "the bridge", I call talent down to the bridge using the bosuns call from TOS. I play the bridge sounds in my studio when I'm not recording and have numerous Trek posters and references all around the walls in my control room and I speak various Klingon phrases just for the fun of it. This halloween, I'm planning on wearing my TNG engineering tunic with Vulcan ears and Bajoran nose, complete with earring, and a Klingon cranial piece. A human, Vulcan, Bajoran, Klingon hybrid, hows that for an alien. The problem I'm having is finding the nose bridge and ears and earring but I'm working on it. If anyone can help me find these pieces, I would greatly appreciate it. Other than all that, I'm as normal as the next person down the street, which really doesn't say a whole lot, does it? What's normal anyway?

I would have to say that it means that Spock is indeed related to Doyle.

 

 

But where did the notion come from that Spock and Doyle are related? I had never heard of this before in any other episode. This was the first instance that I can recall that Spock's ancestry was even brought up, at least on the human side. Where's the connection?

I can't say that I have seen a ghost but I can say that I may have heard one. When I was nine years old my grandfather passed away finally succumbing to cancer. A month or so had passed since his funeral and my family was gathered at my grandparents house for a family function. It was the first one since he had passed away that we were all gathered together. Now my grandparents home was built in the 1930's and during his life, my grandfather had remodeled numerous portions of the house and had actually built a spare bedroom in the attic at the front of the house. It was my understanding, at the time, that he loved this room. It was his personal escape place and he would spend numerous hours in there. As we sat in the living room among cousins and siblings and other relatives, the distinct sound of someone walking from the back of the house to the front, into the upstairs bedroom was distinctly heard by everyone there. The floor in the attic had a distinct sound when someone walked across it and there was always a portion right above the living room that creaked everytime weight was applied. The footsteps were unmistakable and everyone in the living room immediately stopped talking because, according to my grandmother, no one has been upstairs since the funeral. My father immediately thought it was me since I was known to always sneak off to some portion of the house to get away from the grown-ups but when my mother pointed out that I was sitting right there with everyone else, my father became speechless. A quick headcount was done and everyone was accounted for. At that point my father immediately went upstairs to ascertain if someone had gotten into the house and of course, everyone under the age of ten wanted to go with him but my father would have none of that. As he went upstairs, we could hear him walking across the floor into the bedroom, the same floorboards creaking and squeaking, around the room and then back out and downstairs. There was no one there. The family became eerily quiet at that point and some family members suddenly remembered things they had forgotten to do and so the gathering became somewhat smaller suddenly. My father never speculated on what we all thought we heard but even then I could tell that this incident made everyone nervous the rest of the evening. Only now, years later, can I appreciate what I may have been witness to. My mother still lives in the old house since it was passed down in the family when my grandmother passed away three years later and every now and then, there have been strange occurences in that house that defy normal explanations. To this day I believe that my grandfather walked across that floor into that room that he loved so much even though no one else in the family will admit it.

This may have been covered before somewhere but as I watched again, "The Undiscovered Country", I found myself suddenly paying more attention to the scene on the bridge of the Enterprise when the crew, led by Spock, plays back the recording of the attack on the Klingon ship. The scene where Spock attempts to make sense of why it looks like the Enterprise fired on the ship when it was really the cloaked bird of prey. Now even though I have seen this movie more times then I can count, I realized that this scene wasn't really burned into my memory so most of what was being said was almost like hearing it again for the first time. Spock makes the statement that an "ancestor" of his was known to have said that, "When you have eliminated the possible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." For those others here who are Sherlockians, like myself, this quote is immediately recognizable as coming from one of Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories and is generally been credited to have been said by Sherlock himself. Is Spock inferring that he, on his human side, is related to Conan Doyle? I have never come across this tidbit about Spock before so I'm curious as to how this came to be and where this subject may have been broached before? Even in this fantasy world I find it fascinating to think that Spock would be related to one of my favorite authors who, gratefully, did exist.

It all comes down to demographics and numbers. This happens every year with intelligent programming. You may have seem numerous shows in the past that television critics and some of the public just love but invariably get cancelled. In reality, most television viewers don't want to think, they just want to be entertained. Rupert Murdoch of Fox broadcasting recognized this years ago and hence his programming, in case you haven't noticed, panders to the lowest common demoninator. Intelligent, thought provoking programming usually never makes it because the average viewer and the largest demographic, males 18 to 49, won't watch it. If the advertisers see that the audience block they want is not watching a particular show, it doesn't matter how good it is, they won't pour advertising dollars into it leaving the network to weigh the difference between production costs and the amount of revenue stream the show generates. If it can't at least break even, the show will get cancelled no matter what the critics and certain segments of the populace think. Here's an example. A show that does well with viewers 29 to 54 might create a viewership that starts small but doesn't grow beyond the demographic boundries. No increase in viewers, especially in that 18 to 49 range, and the advertisers won't advertise on that program because that's not who they want to sell products to. Since advertising dollars are what drives all broadcasting if the network can't recoup the production costs in a reasonable time, which today seems like two months at the best, the network will drop the program quickly in order to get something on the air that will give the advertisers what they want. There is no patience anymore. Neilson ratings play a part in it but again even if the neilsons say a show is doing okay, that doesn't mean the advertisers are going to buy into it if the demographics of the show are in the geriatric range. It's just the nature of the beast today which is sad. I watch a lot of PBS and I honestly think that even some of the shows on, say the history channel, would do well on the over the air networks but can anyone say that they watch more informative programs on PBS then what's available on the other networks? I'll have to look and do a search for well written shows that were cancelled but with todays programming choices and what the average viewer seems to want to watch, I wouldn't hold my breath for any changes anytime soon.

One of my personal favorities has always been the one Spielberg movie that was panned by the critics. "1941", with John Belushi. I still think the critics just didn't get it.

I'm surprised that more people here in the states haven't been as caught up in it as the rest of the world. This is a monumental task that Lance is attempting. No one has ever won 6 straight in the 100 years of the tour. Bicycle racing just isn't sexy enough for the average U.S viewer I guess, which is too bad considering that it's an American. You'd think that the U.S. networks would devote more time and energy to the story. Perhaps that'll change as we get closer to the end of the tour.

After months of debating with myself over the need to begin my DS9 collection, I finally gave in and bought season 5. It was a tough call but since this one had Trials and Tribble-lations in it, I thought it was a reasonable start. Now even though I haven't watched them all yet, preferring to take it only an episode or two every other day or so, I realized that this was one year where I actually missed a number of episodes. One thing I've noticed, and it may be just my perspective on this, but it seems as if this particular year, there are a number of Ferengi episodes, or just maybe more emphasis on the Ferengis in general and Quark and Rom in particular. I don't even remember the episode when Nog returned to the station as a cadet, I seemed to have missed that one the first time around as well. Does anyone else have this same perspective or is it just me? Nothing earthshattering here, just curious.

Here we go, bashing poor Spike tv again. I really understand everyone's complaints but in today's highly competitive entertainment industry field, that is just the nature of the beast. Even though i'm involved professionaly with the broadcast industry, I too, hate those annoying pop up promos that Spike uses to promote their network, but I do understand why they are being used and right now, in case you haven't noticed it, these type of pop up promos are starting to be used at other networks and even some over the air traditional networks have begun experimenting with them, though not as lavish as what Spike is doing. It's advertising, the heart of the engine that runs all broadcasts, whether it be over the air or cable and satellite. It does ruin taped episodes when attempting to archive a series and it is really annoying to see them every five minutes or so. A top or bottom of the hour promo would be fine but not 5 to 6 times every half hour. If I didn't enjoy Trek so much I probably wouldn't turn to Spike since I rarely see anything on that network that really warrants my attention. But what they are doing is attempting to raise awareness, not so much with the regular viewers of the network, and I don't consider Trek fans getting their daily fix really much of a regular viewer, but with those viewers who do alot of channel surfing, i.e. young males. And even though I agree it's a little silly for Spike to call itself the "First Network for Men", (I always thought ESPN claimed that title years ago), is it any sillier then Lifetime calling itself television for women? And what about the Oxygen channel? What is it that they promote themselves as? I can't seem to remember at the moment but I believe it's squarely aimed at the female audience. What this all come down to is in today's multiple choice world of entertainment, being a little annoying can be a public relations boom and yes it will turn off some viewers, maybe even to the point of avoiding the network altogether, like Va Beach Guy, but it may also bring an awareness to people not familiar with the network who happen to chance upon it during a typical male channel surf night. This is an acceptable risk to the suits that run this particular network. You can complain about whatever you want to them but in their minds, by making you do that, they have proven their point that people are beginning to know them even if it's just the name and you have no idea what else they broadcast. In time the network will change, maybe even be bought again and morphed into something else, but for the time being they are going to continue to do what they are doing. Why? According to the trade publications that I read, the advertisers are liking what they are seeing out of that network. They do attract males 18 to 49, the Prime demographic, and even though it's small in relation to what other networks attract, it's still what the advertisers want. So from the accounting stand point, Spike is doing very well even though they've pretty much pissed off most ST fans with their promos and schedules. But let's face it, almost all of what is being broadcast these days are pretty bad. With FOX leading the way with pandering to the lowest common demoninator most tv shows these days have very little redeeming value and are produced and promoted to make the fastest advertising dollar they can. There is no longer a patience out there among the suits that is willing to wait to build an audience and ratings. That takes time and all networks want to have their cake and eat it too instead of building a loyal following with intelligent, well written and produced entertainment. We can all thank Rupert Murdoch for that. Unfortunately for us Trek fans, Spike owns the network broadcast rights to all of the Trek shows and I believe they have the rights to them for the next ten years. What does this all mean? Buy the dvd's

As Q has been quoted as saying, all good things must come to an end. This is an excellent question and as much as we all here love the world of Trek, I'm afraid, from my own contacts in the industry, that the interest level is just not what it was. Many of the original fans of Star Trek are now into their 40's and 50's and life has a habit of making you realize that there are more important things to be concerned about than your favorite tv show. I do believe that a break from tv is coming. Not the re-runs mind you, just any new series. There will always be a Trek show on somewhere just as you can find MASH, I Love Lucy, Cheers and just about any show that meets the syndication criteria but once this Enterprise has run it's course (and I don't think it will make it to seven years), Star Trek will be retired. This is of course speculation from my contacts but if the ratings don't increase and if another movie, if there is one, fails to make a profit, then Star Trek will most likely be regulated to retirement. That's not to say the Vegas attractions will shut down or the conventions but TV is profit driven. No profit, no show no matter how loud the fan base screams. I also do believe that the fan base is getting smaller as well. It's been a great run though these 17 years but Gene is gone, Majel is getting on in years and, to be honest, what else can be done with the franchise? The formula is now old and even though any of us can come up with an idea that we think is great, in some way or form, it's already been done. Enjoy what we still have but the idea of the universe ending because someone pulls the plug one day is highly unlikely. We already watch as much re-runs as we can, purchase the dvd's, and in some cases, spout techno-babble on some level so it will always be with us. If it does end, then some future generation can re-discover the dream and perhaps start it all over again. That, to me, will be far more likely.

I Produced 4 radio spots, directed an audio session in Baltimore via isdn lines, and hung out here when no one was looking. Oh, I also had a discussion with a client about the need to keep slates on spots when distributing them to the stations. Soon, I plan to head to my favorite Friday watering hole and partake of the nectar of the gods, a marguarita (or two), straight up, shaken and no salt.

Absolutely. But not all shows have naked people and one show on a network that has questionable taste would not be reason enough to boycott that network entirely. One bad apple does not necessarily spoil the whole bunch.

That's a good answer but still a little egocentric. The human way of trying to convice ourselves that we are still the center of the universe. It also still reeks a bit of American jingoism but it is an American TV show and a fictional one at that. I still think I would have prefered the EAS or UFP designation especially since it's the humans who usually are the most vocal in expressing the need to uphold and preserve the Federation. Thank you though. I can now offer a retort to my offspring. Just curious though, Captain Bolivar, where did you find this speck of Information?

The fabric of the cosmos is probably way beyond our ability to afford it and most likely wouldn't look good in my living room. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I think that the way Mars looks now could be a reflection of a distant future earth, although I think Venus fits the criteria more. With the greenhouse gases filling our atmosphere we have a better chance of looking like venus at some future time. I would like to believe that Mars and Earth were as close to being sister planets as could be and perhaps Mars was dealt a cosmic death blow from an asteroid impact millions of years ago. It is father out, right next to the asteroid belt, and if you've seen recent picture of Mars' two moons, Phobos and Deimos, they look like remnents of something bigger at one time. It has already been speculated that the two moons are not indigenious to Mars at all but captured asteroids. But what about the possibility of them being what was left over from a massive asteroid hit and what is there now is the left over debris thrown up from that hit? Earth could very well look like Mars today at some distant future time but so could Venus as well. We have a lot yet to learn.

Yes, we do spend more on space than some countries GNP but as Ray Bradbury put it almost 30 years ago, we aren't spending one red cent on space or on the moon. (paraphrase here.) The money is being spent here on earth in places where they produce jobs for some of our best and brightest people. Jobs that were pulled out from underneath them back in the 70's when congress decided to cut back on the space program because we won the race to the moon. All those people who worked so hard to win that race were now being told that they were no longer needed, thank you very much and don't let the door hit you in the *buttocks* on the way out. If your intelligent enough to be a whiz in aeronautics, quantum physics or rocket science and were in college, I'm sure you'd want something to look forward to once your formal education years are over and need to support yourself and/or your family. There's not enough spent on the space program in my opinion and I'd rather have my tax dollars be spent on the possibility of getting into space easier and education then to see it wasted on another weapon of war that most likely will never be used. It's more important to teach a child how to solve problems then to build something that will blow it up. As Winston Churchill said, we already have enough in nuclears bombs and missiles to destroy the earth 10 times over. The rest is just to make the rubble bounce. Let's get to Mars.

I'm even surprised at CJLP's comment about being all for censoring network TV.  In case you haven't noticed it, there's a little switch on your tv called the on/off switch.  If you don't like what you see, simply turn it off or find another channel or better yet, read a book or two.

The reason why I said that is becuase I watch almost no TV these days becuase it's riddled with sexuallity and graphic violence. Now I only watch the Trek shows & SG-1.

Then you have made your choice and are already practicing your own form of censorship, which is fine since it only affects your own life and not someone elses. But I would hardly call the Disney Channel, or TBS or even the major networks as channels rife with sexuality and graphic violence. It does come down to the eye of the beholder and personal choices. There are a number of other programs and channels as well that would no doubt fit your criteria for wholesomeness. But where do you draw the line? As I mentioned, the NFL itself is a graphically violent sport and as for sexuality, well, if it wasn't for sexuality, we all wouldn't be here and like it or not, is part of the human experience. Everyone learns about it sooner or later because of our own biological need to reproduce. As long as there are no laws abridging the freedom of speech or expression, which the broadcast airwaves are part of, I have no qualms with anyone who wishes to express that they don't like what they see or hear. As I mentioned, you don't have to watch or listen but trying to impose those viewpoints on the country as a whole would lead to some pretty boring broadcasts not to mention rebellion.

In my case, Earth, North American Continent, Great lakes region in a place called Milwaukee (Gathering of the Waters, in the Chippawa language), during those heady years of the late 50's.

Forget Wesley. Captain Nog, the first Ferengi in Starfleet, as a captain of a new series would be a great idea. A book would be a more likely scenario though and one which some writer somewhere should consider.

What the FCC wants and what the FCC is going to get are completely two different things. Knee jerk reactions, especially when it comes to free speech over the air waves, are never going to pass muster with all of the country. Again, inflicting moral codes simply because someone somewhere doesn't like something, is simply blatant censorship, pure and simple. Is that what are fathers and grandfather fought for? For the right for someone to censure something simply because they don't like it? I'm even surprised at CJLP's comment about being all for censoring network TV. In case you haven't noticed it, there's a little switch on your tv called the on/off switch. If you don't like what you see, simply turn it off or find another channel or better yet, read a book or two. If your worried about what children see and think, what are you going to do when they become adults and they make the choices to watch or read something that you may have forbidden when they were young? It's all about choices and as adults, we have the right to learn, read, watch or listen to anything we want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Censorship is nothing more then denying you your rights to this freedom under the guise of someone's so called morality. This is a large country and what someone doesn't like in one part of it doesn't mean that it's not accepted in another. We talk about diversity and tolerance but who really practices it? Don't look for the FCC really to do too much except maybe issue a few more hefty fines and if someone is really that concerned about the violence we see on TV then lets stop broadcasting the NFL and NHL and maybe stop broadcasting a baseball game because a pitcher throws at a batter and before you know it, there's a full scalled brawl right on you screen for all the country to see that is not play acting but real grown up men trying to hurt each other. By the standards of those wanting to ban violence from tv then these incidents would fit into that catagory. Would this happen? Not on your life. This country lately has gotten very vocal in what it says it wants to see and what it doesn't but the line they draw is so vague that even the supreme court would have a hard time coming up with a clear cut definition. Again, if you don't like what you see you can exercise your right not to watch it or your family from watching it but don't tell the rest of the country or me, for that matter, that I can't simply because you don't like it. You want examples of this kind of government control and censorship? Then look at Germany in 1933. Under the guise of cleaning up the German culture, the foundation was laid for discrimination, hatred, and eventually genocide. This fact is undeniable and we, as a country, cannot allow ourselves to follow that same path no matter what the best intentions may be.

Something occured to me while watching (again), First Contact. When Picard makes his big speech to Lily in his ready room and vows to make the Borg "pay" for what they've done, it seemed to me that if anyone would know about the Borg it would have to be Jean Luc himself, since he was assimilated himself and has some pretty tragic memories about the entire episode before being rescued. But then last saturday, the Voyager episode "Unimatrix 0" was re-played and in that episode, the heroic Captain Janeway, who by now has meet the Borg and defeated them more than Picard has, vows to stop the Borg queen from destroying unimatrix 0 by incorporating a virus into their central plexus (?) byh becoming assimilated herslef along with Tuvok and Belanna. Since, when you become assimilated you become part of the hive mind, doesn't it work both ways? I mean if the Borg can use what you know to better themselves, wouldn't someone being released from tyhe collective retain the memories and thoughts of what the Borg are doing and thinking and use that against them? Could this be what made Janeway so effective against the Borg on their home turf or was she just lucky? And because of her repeated encounters with the Borg always resulted in her getting the upper hand, wouldn't that make her the undisputed expert on all things Borg? As Lt. Barclay put it in "Endgame", she wrote the book on the Borg for Starfleet, even though as the series ended that became an alternate timeline. Who would you prefer to have on your side in an encounter with the Borg, Picard or Janeway? In my opinion, Janeway becomes my first round draft choice to defeat the borg over Picard? Opposing views and thoughts, as always, are welcome.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a cop out to me. USS, in this future time, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me considering the circumstances of what the Federation is supposed to be. Oh well, as usual, this is just my opinion and thoughts on the subject and I'm always open to hearing any sort of explanation concerning this.

I've had the great experience of meeting the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself some years ago just before the idea of Star Trek conventions took off. It was in Milwaukee and Gene came to give a speech about science fiction and the direction it was heading. This was in 1975 in Milwaukee and just before the Star Wars craze hit the country. I got to shake his hand and tell him how much I appreciated his vision of Star Trek and to tell him that I hoped it would return in either series or movie format. A truly landmark moment in my young life at the time. Presently, I have the pleasure of working regularly with an old TOS alumni extra. Mr. Derek Partridge, who played on of the extras in "Platos Children" is one of our voices in my studio's stable of voice actors. He was the dark haired individual with the blue patterned toga in the episode. I have his still up on my studio wall. Other than that all my glimpses of Star Trek Alumni have been at long distance since I don't get out to too many conventions.

Okay fellow trekkers, I'm at a bit of a loss here from a question that my 14 year old son threw at me. Among my many interests is history and in particular U.S. naval history with an emphasis on W.W.II. While watching a recent TNG episode my son asked my why, if Star Trek is taking place in the future, especially during a time when there is a single world government, are Starfleet ships still designated as USS? Most of us know that these designations usually refer to the country of origin or rather the country that the ship serves under, i.e. USS-United States Ship or HMS-Her Majestys Ship, and so on. If that's the case why are the Starfleet ships still labeled with this designation? I'm sure the United States still exists in this fictional future time but even so, if Earth is a part of an all encompasing Federation consisting of hundreds of other worlds, with crew members of different species, why would Starfleet ships carry an obvious Earth and, more to the point, human designation? Could it be that because humans were the driving force behind the founding of the Federation that we made the decision to give all Starfleet ships this identity just because we said so? Or does the USS stand for United Solar Systems? Wouldn't it make more sense to designate all Starfleet ships as UFP ships instead? UFP Enterprise or UFP Constitution would seem to be more in line with the idea of a unified designation for any ship serving under the Federation banner. Maybe UFP isn't sexy enough? I admit I couldn't come up with a resonable answer to my son's question and he left the room with his arms raised triumphantly over his head yelling that he finally got one over on old dad. Now this may have been covered somewhere else a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away but I don't recall ever seeing this addressed. Help me out here friends. I have a fourteen year old I need to put back in his place when it comes to understanding Star Trek.

These are all classic debate tactics and I'm glad to see the world of debate, point and counterpoint upheld here at startrekfans, but what I would like to know is what do any of you do when you are wrong? Not so much in a belief but in a point of contention that doesn't undermine your belief but maybe causes you to re-arrange the foundation of that belief a little bit? Not everyone can be right all the time and during your entire lifetime views on may subjects can be open to change when presented with arguments that could be, in some cases, stronger and more valid then what you previously believed. An example could be, and I may be reaching a bit here, is the idea of what is the center of the universe? How many hundreds of years did the church hold to the idea that the earth was the center and even went so far as to persecute those that didn't see it that way, even when presented with proof of the falicy of their belief? I'm not saying that anyone is wrong any more than saying that everyone is right. Belief in an idea or anything is a matter of faith and reamins on a personal level but is your belief or opinion, perhaps that's a better word, that resolute that you refuse to change it or even consider changing it when confronted with a conflicting viewpoint that could cause one to restructure their belief system? Is changing a viewpoint considered a sign of weakness or does one consider that possibility an opportunity to grow and learn and in the process, become stronger for it? The world and everyone on it is in a constant rate of change. There were some ideas and beliefs that were considered right even a hundred years ago but today no longer hold water due to societal changes which caused a change in how people perceived things. Less than 80 years ago, is was believed that women had no right to vote. Does anyone hold to that belief now? Just some ideas to thrash around here. When does holding on to an debated belief become pointless when confronted with an equally and perhaps stronger counterpoint?