Review of “Where No Man Has Gone Before” Remastered | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Review of “Where No Man Has Gone Before” Remastered January 23, 2007

by Dennis Russell Bailey , Filed under: Review,TOS Remastered , trackback

“If I Ruled The World…”
The Enterprise, leaving the galaxy, discovers the scarred and blasted recorder marker of the only other ship to do so, the Valiant.  Upon reviewing the Valiant’s tapes, Spock discovers that the ship hit some kind of “unknown force” and as a consequence of some (inaudible) events involving (tape damaged) and ESP and such that ship’s captain ordered his vessel destroyed.

Captain Kirk decides to forge on ahead, reasoning that since other ships will someday explore this region it’s important for the Enterprise to leave behind its own scarred and blasted recorder marker to warn them off.

Turns out there’s a big Energy Wall around our galaxy, despite the fact that the only thing more scientifically ridiculous would be a big Energy Wall around the heart of our galaxy imprisoning a demon that claims to be God.  The barrier (now given the full CGI treatment) zaps a number of Kirk’s crew, most notably his pal Gary Mitchell and Dr. Elizabeth “Hotlips” Dehner.

Mitchell, who’s a real piece of work, develops psychic powers that get stronger over time.  Sulu explains how dangerous this makes him by using the “doubling penny” analogy that so many of us unsuccessfully proposed to our parents as a tricky get-rich-quick scheme for our allowances.  Dehner doesn’t think anyone should worry, on account of how “Gary-I-Mean-Mr-Mitchell is so totally hot now that I’m withdrawing my sexual harassment complaint for his behavior on the bridge.”  Spock and Kirk engage in an impromptu debate on the relative effectiveness of capital punishment versus life imprisonment, and Kirk decides to maroon Mitchell on the planet Delta Vega.

In another boneheaded command decision (collect the whole set!), Kirk leaves a single crewman behind to monitor Mitchell while everyone else goes Somewhere Else to do Something Important.  Single Crewman Kelso discovers that he’s not going to be a series regular after all, Mitchell escapes, and Kirk gets his shirt torn off in the ensuing fist fight for the first of approximately 3,224.6 times.  In the end we discover the answer to that age-old theological paradox:  “If Mitchell is omnipotent, can Mitchell create a rock too heavy for Mitchell to lift?”

The answer is a resounding “you betcha!” and the Enterprise is saved.


Isn’t there some tear-proof miracle fabric in the future?

The Write Stuff
NBC executives were impressed by "The Cage," but concerned by the cost of the first "Star Trek" pilot.  Coming in at about 330,000 dollars, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" still cost significantly more than an average production episode of Trek but apparently did satisfy the network folks that the show could be produced on an acceptable budget.

NBC was also reportedly unimpressed by several of the cast members.  Many fans credit the recasting of the Captain as key to the show’s eventual success, but I think the crucial difference between the characters in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is to be found in the script itself.   Peebles’ well-structured teleplay energizes the performances.  Yeah, Shatner’s charming but Hunter was no slouch either.  After all, he’d held his own on screen with the likes of John Wayne and Natalie Wood in big-screen fare like “The Searchers”.  On the other hand while Peebles’ dialogue was nearly as stilted and expository as Roddenberry’s, his characters reveal their strengths and weaknesses through action to a far greater degree than we saw in "The Cage."

Consider the scene in which Kirk is introduced – a friend pointed out to me not long ago that Kirk’s intuitive chess play against Spock immediately conveys a propensity for unexpected strategy and successful risk taking that defies the odds.  Our main clue to "Number One’s" emotional detachment in "The Cage" was Barrett’s monotonous line delivery; Peebles’ version of Spock demonstrates his lack of emotion by counseling his commander to murder a long-time friend in cold blood for the good of everyone else aboard.  When Kirk chooses a more humane alternative (also presented by the dispassionate Vulcan), Spock takes the initiative to arm himself and the landing party against the likelihood of the failure of Kirk’s plan.


Spock: I still can’t believe he beat me…must have cheated

Mitchell is portrayed in word and deed as an arrogant and manipulative man from the beginning ("I mapped out her whole campaign for her"), a contrast to Dehner’s observant and empathetic if somewhat reticent character.  Guess which character will, when imbued with the Power Cosmic, attempt to enforce his will upon his crewmates and to which Kirk will successfully appeal ("Hang on to being human for one minute longer…do you like what you see?") for intercession on behalf of humanity?

Finally, Peebles introduces the basic dynamic through which most TOS stories will be successfully told: the Captain’s dilemma when facing a tough decision is dramatized through his interaction with crewmates who stake out extreme positions. Spock weighs in on the side of cold, rational calculation and Dehner represents the unquantifiable imperatives of morality and compassion.  Dehner’s role prefigures McCoy’s in the rest of the series.


Dehner – The McCoy prototype

The Effects – What’s Changed
First a word about the restored live-action footage: the colors really pop in this new version of the episode.  The distinction between Kirk’s green command uniform and the tan tunics worn by characters like Mitchell and Kelso is finally visible – as is the sallow pancake makeup that Nimoy wears.  On the soundstage planet set bold slashes of red and green paint sprayed across the papier mache rocks may detract from the realism of the landscape but add a stylized and otherwordly touch.

The very first new shot of the episode shows the Enterprise approaching camera, the recognizable “stellar cloud” of our galaxy in the background. This is likely homage to the opening of this episode as it was originally presented to the network. That edit, never broadcast, began with a lingering shot of the Milky Way spiral in the distance while Kirk explained in voice-over that the Enterprise was leaving the galaxy on “a new task…a probe out into where no man has gone before.”


Shot of galaxy from unaired version of WNMHGB

While effective in the opening, the re-use of the galactic cloud in the last shot of the show underscores a minor logical flaw in the teleplay by reminding us that we’re still outside the galaxy.  If the Enterprise and Valiant are the only ships that have explored this far out, how is it that a “lithium cracking station” has been operating on a planetoid at the galaxy’s edge long and reliably enough for an (according to Spock) twenty-year cycle of ore ship stopovers to have been established? 

I’m sure that Trek fans can “explain” that one easily enough, but it feels like a big “D’oh!” to me.

At this point the CBS Digital crew has the dynamics of lighting and animating the Enterprise and the creation of planetary globes pretty much down cold.  The model used this week approximates the original appearance of the ship in this episode.  It’s not perfect in every detail (nor, for that matter, is the “production version” now used in other new episodes), but the inaccuracies are in all honesty trivial when compared to the wildly-varying versions of the ship that we became used to seeing juxtaposed in almost every episode of the original series.

The use of this faux “pilot Enterprise” in the opening credits sequence of the episode is a nice and unexpected touch, but it does make the decision to include Shatner’s voice-over (originally absent from this episode’s credits) especially puzzling.  Mark me down on the “Kirk’s voice-over doesn’t belong there and this was a bad call” side of the debate.


New special pilot model opening credits…are some things best left unchanged?

The matte painting of Delta Vega has been treated with well-deserved respect by CBS Digital’s artists.  Like the Rigel Fortress in “The Cage” the original matte is an instance of TOS getting it exactly right to begin with. The mining towers and equipment have been enhanced with bullet lights in one instance, and that’s successful both technically and as a piece of art in the way that it alters the mood of the shot.

The showpiece of the new CG work on this episode is clearly the Galactic Barrier.  Seen in motion, with the Enterprise navigating through it as the camera follows, the Barrier is a fully realized three-dimensional environment exhibiting fine structure which distinguishes it from the vaguely B5-ish/”Mutara Nebula” impression given by the pre-release studio still shots. 

The sequence is breathtaking, but it troubles me. 

Early on, the producers of “Star Trek Remastered” emphasized that “every new CGI shot will mimic the original choices made the original editors and director” and that they were taking “painstaking efforts to match the original show shot for shot, edit for edit.”

My opinion is that in sequences like this one and several in episodes like “Space Seed”, CBS Digital pretty much abandons that brief.  I can understand that; in my review of “City On The Edge Of Forever” I wondered “Will there be any novelty left to the project, by the time they’ve done thirteen episodes or so, without a more radical rethinking of these kinds of shots?  I guess we’ll find out.”

Well, we’re finding out and the result presents a bit of a conundrum for a reviewer, to wit: by what standard should the new effects now be judged?  If the artists are going to produce modern, dynamic and sophisticated CG work with somewhat limited regard for the original effects design is it enough for their imagery to compare favorably to that of TOS?  Or ought we now to evaluate it by comparison to the best and most persuasive of such work currently being done for television?  For my money that’s to be seen on shows like “Battlestar Galactica” and “Firefly”  – and unfortunately by that standard “Star Trek Remastered” falls short.

‘Tis a puzzlement.


Beautiful compared to ’60s Trek, but do these new shots stack up against modern shows? 

What’s Left Alone
All of the documents displayed on various of the Enterprise’s viewers remain the crudely typewritten originals (they’re even pre-IBM Selectric!).  Since most of these are shots in which the camera is static relative to the screen one wonders how time-consuming such substitutions could have been?


The typerwriter medical record

Kirk remains “James R. Kirk” as far as Mitch the Reaper is concerned.  I note this with a relief bordering on glee.  The “R” in this case was not an error on anyone’s part.  It represents a snapshot, a moment in the evolution of Trek’s often contradictory internal continuity before every detail was locked down tight.

I hope that the crew at CBS Digital remains at least somewhat reluctant to erase these little bits of production history in favor of a foolish and unnecessary consistency.


Another great new matte with few changes…if it ain’t broke…

 

Comments

1. Lao3D - January 23, 2007

“Single Crewman Kelso discovers that he’s not going to be a series regular after all…”

Too funny! Another thoroughly entertaining and even-handed review — thanks DB!

2. Still Kirok - January 23, 2007

I think it was a mistake not to change the R to a T.

It’s such a glaring difference. And his initial is clearly T. There is no logical reason to leave it alone.

3. Father Rob - January 23, 2007

Dennis,

Thanks for the review. I agree that these shots, particularlly in WNMHGB, do not stack up with the standards set elsewhere and not even with the quality that TOS:R has already had (not that I want to represent you as feeling that way about all the shots…)

Good catch on the unaried pilot and the galaxy question. Think I’ll go an You-Tube that and rewatch the stuf that was cut in from the other version.

Rob+

4. Captain Pike - January 23, 2007

If there had been time, the computer screens and the R should have been updated. Maintain “production history” is no reason not to do it. If maintaining integrity with the original production was a concern why do any updates at all?

The space effects were pretty great. Can’t wait to see them in real HD.

5. kaygee68 - January 23, 2007

The thing that struck me about watching this episode for the upteenth time is what a dolt Lee Kelso was. First he commits a serious oversight in inspecting the impulse engines that could have resulted in the destruction of half the ship, and then he professes to try to rig a relay on Delta Vega without blowing up the entire station, which he doesn’t seem all that confident about. I half expected Kirk to whack him with a cap and call him “little buddy.”

6. Sci-Fi Bri - January 23, 2007

part of what i like about star trek is the production history tho’. this was a crappy show done in the 1960s… and its done a lot, but its not without its faults.

leaving the R alone was the right choice.

i can’t wait for Spock’s Brain

7. Matt Wright - January 23, 2007

Another great review that I mostly agree with. I knew the Milky Way CGI was familiar but I couldn’t place it until you mentioned the older version never aired. I saw it on YouTube a while back, and I couldn’t think where I kept geting this sense of deja vu from.

8. CmdrR - January 23, 2007

I still think XI can have fun with the R v T megacontroversy. IF Mitchell is in XI, he can call Kirk “JR” or some such. The fans would get it. The others in the audience would be too busy playing games on their cell phones to care.

9. Spock's Brain - January 23, 2007

Since when is consistency foolish and unnecessary?

10. Scott Gammans - January 23, 2007

Excellent review, Dennis. I always look forward to learning a little more about the craft of writing when reading one of your essays, and as usual your words did not disappoint. Good work!

11. chris - January 23, 2007

crappy show..?!?!?
Why the hell are you watching it then!

12. Xplodin' Nacelle - January 23, 2007

Maybe the R will show up in Trek XI as Mitchell’s barb at Kirk. Perhaps the R stands for “Renob”, or something, his way of calling Jim a Dunsel.

13. ChurchHatesTucker - January 23, 2007

I’m in favor of leaving the “R.” It’s easy enough to explain away as a sort of in-joke (at least one novel has done that.)

I can’t understand not updating the library graphics. Crap, *I* could probably pull that off.

I love the tone of these reviews. It reminds me of Wil Weaton’s takes on TNG. Keep ‘em coming.

14. An olde timey fan - January 23, 2007

Saith the Waldo:

” A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

James R. Kirk.

Energy Barriers in and out of the galaxy.

Lithium cracking stations “where no man has gone before”.

“Where No Man Has Gone Before”

“Enterprise, this is Captain Kirk.”

“Materializer ready”

God bless an organic, inconsistent, gloriously ILLOGICAL Star Trek!

15. Michael Hall - January 23, 2007

Kelso’s overlooking the decayed power packs and blowing Engineering sky-high would have been quite the blooper all right, but he redeemed himself by managing to raid an old power station for incompatible parts and reenergizing the ship’s engines with them–a feat in Montgomery’s Scott’s best tradition. What strikes me watching the episode now is how bad Kirk’s decisions are from the get-go. Given the evidence what had happened to the Valiant and its aftermath, his choice to enter the barrier (without so much as launching a probe first, fer chrissakes) was an act of sheer recklessness reminiscient of George W. Bush at his worst. Eleven crew dead, including a best friend, and Earth’s flagship almost left stranded at the ends of the galaxy–definitely not the best way for a five-year mission of exploration to start.

Scott Gammans–in case you hadn’t caught my comments on a previous thread, just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed viewing the work on your website. Great stuff.

16. Bob Jones - January 23, 2007

Hey, Beavis. Good review. I’ve never really liked this episode as I find Dehner way too unsympathetic and agree with you about Mitchell; he is way too creepy and arrogant. But I liked much of the new stuff. Count me on the other side of the R vs. T debate.

Good to see you’ve moved on to other interests in your life. Oh, wait . . .

Bob

17. hitch1969© - January 23, 2007

If calling DRuss B-Flav© Beavis is wrong, then please call old hitch1969© Butt-head and make this mothergrabber RIGHT.

DRuss B-Flav©, once again a mac in the pants review. I haven’t even read it yet, but you’ve got that phone-it-in cache with hitchworld. I trust in your wordsmith. You’re a death row PIMP® macking it old skewl. Who loves ya baybeeeee?

I had some thoughts while watching the show on Saturday. First of all, congratulations to CBS-D for a very non-Grunberg® job once again.

… I will have to relate the specifics about the show in a later post. The girlfriend is on the menstrual about something or other and I am needed elsewhere with the parenting and whatnot. Never fear – Budweiser is near.

I shall return in kind, as I always do.

best!!

=h=

18. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2007

#2 ” And his initial is clearly T”

Not in 1965 it wasn’t.

But what the hell, you say tomato and I say…tomato.

You know, that gag doesn’t work in print.

#!6: Beavis! Good to see you! Other interests? What’s that? :lol:

19. Scott - January 23, 2007

I had no idea Mario Van Peebles wrote this episode! Quite the prodigy….

Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Actually, I’m sure Sam Peeples would have gotten a kick out of your review as much as I did.

Scott B. out.

20. Mark 2000 - January 23, 2007

Well, I gotta say I can’t believe how well you rate this attempt. The ship looks bad. The metal engine tips look plastic or rubbery. And the inconsistent treatment of viewscreen data is just unacceptable.

Lets face it, this project is a disaster. The work is inconsistent. Rules for changes in one episode don’t apply in another. How can we take this seriously? Especially from a project that says its preserving this show for the future. What kind of furture? One where every episode needs more work? I for one hope the unaltered show is put on HDDVD because I am not buying a half done product.

It seems we buy software and operating systems that need patching before it hits shelves, now we’ll also be buying TV shows that need patching too.

21. neal - January 23, 2007

Some primo one-liners in that review. A good writer knows his audience — well done! Lots of chuckles reverberating through subspace.

22. hitch1969© - January 23, 2007

Mark 2000®, very very very Grunberg kinda sentiment. You should be ashamed.

CBS-D = Okuda in the pants, Rossi in the beanbag.

Large and Virile.

=h=

23. Cranston - January 23, 2007

Nice review. I agree with almost everything you said, and want to add a few thoughts.

On rewatching WNMHGB (also on DVD a few weeks ago), several things struck me that, while probably obvious, I don’t think I’d consciously thought of before.

One thing is that, for a pilot, this story relies surprisingly heavily on characters who will *not* be series regulars. The stars and protagonists of this episode are clearly Kirk, Mitchell, and Dehner. Spock is a strong supporting role and Kelso makes an impression, but the rest are essentially bit parts. By the end of the episode, we’re left with only Kirk and Spock to carry through into the series. So the episode really stands out as separate from the rest of the series for reasons much deeper than just the changes in costumes and sets.

But it works extremely well, even in context with the rest of the series. For a show that had at best a passing concern with the passage of time (by this I mean that there were no continuing storylines or character arcs that extended beyond one or two episodes, with the minor exception of the reappearance of Harry Mudd), this episode provides a convincing “starting point” for understanding Kirk’s character later. Kirk doesn’t change much from Season 1 to Season 3, nor does his relationship with Spock. But there is character growth between WNMHGB and the rest of the series. Here we see the moment when Kirk goes from being an unexperienced commander who always has his old buddy around for advice (a buddy who the reviewer above notes is clearly manipulative, and who looks like the dominant personality in that friendship) to being a confident leader who takes advice from his officers and confidants but still remains a little bit isolated from them. (On this point I’m not getting into the movies, where this doesn’t quite hold true).

The other thing that strikes me is that it also shows the beginning of not necessarily his friendship, but his *trust* in Spock. The conversation in the briefing room, when Spock advises Kirk to do something unpleasant that must be done, is one that is echoed (albeit more gently) in many later episodes, but it strikes me now that not only is this the first time that conversation was shown to viewers (as the first episode), it also looks like the first time it’s happened between the characters. That Kirk is able to see this as a foundation for a close, trusting working relationship rather than resenting Spock says a lot about his character too.

And the little moment when we find out that Kirk used to be known as something of a nerd (“a stack of books with legs”) makes for an interesting contrast to his later, bolder self.

Anyway, these things probably nothing new to most fans, and this post is a lot wordier than I intended, but it’s something that I really appreciate now.

24. CmdrR - January 23, 2007

Ye gods, Cranston! I guess we know what you were doing during Bush’s SOU.

Good points, thought.
;-)

25. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2007

#23: “One thing is that, for a pilot, this story relies surprisingly heavily on characters who will *not* be series regulars. The stars and protagonists of this episode are clearly Kirk, Mitchell, and Dehner. Spock is a strong supporting role and Kelso makes an impression, but the rest are essentially bit parts. By the end of the episode, we’re left with only Kirk and Spock to carry through into the series”

This is true, and I think it’s rooted in Roddenberry’s original conception of the series as a kind of “anthology with continuing characters.”

In many of the earliest Trek episodes, much of the action focuses on a character or characters who are introduced as guest stars who catalyze the action and whose lives will be changed dramatically as a result of the events of the story: Dave Bailey, Charlie Evans, Stiles, and Eve (“Mudd’s Women”) are examples. Most all of the pivotal dramatic scenes in those episodes revolve around the actions and motivations of the guest characters.

This wasn’t so unusual at the time – Quinn Martin used the format of the “running man” to accomplish much the same thing. Series like “The Fugitive” or “Run For Your Life” or “The Invaders” involved the single continuing character coming to a new location, adopting a temporary identity, and participating in a drama that would leave the guest characters with changed lives while affecting the regular star little if at all.

I think this was a wonderful format for weekly dramas that produced more stories that have been remembered longer than I’d bet most of contemporary TV will be. It’s an approach that fell prey to easier, more reliable techniques for holding an audience week after week rather than being superceded by better storytelling formats. IMAO, of course.

26. hitch1969© - January 23, 2007

I know what I was going to say about the episode now.

The parallels to ST5 are to say the least, disturbing. And one thing totally resonated through my mind – whoever it was, in the comments of the review of ST5 here – who said they were looking for the money shot when Kirk confronted God™….

“Gary?”

Man, whoever said that was MONEY. I totally agree now, and see now why they said that.

In other thoughts, I DID LOOK FOR Kellerman’s cameltoe©. I was disappointed to not see this. Perhaps CBS-D CGI’d that crease line out? I’m back to my original opinion about erasing that Kellerman Zsha Zsha syllabant whistle S altogether.

Those are my thoughts. Of course, powered again this week by Budweiser®. =Budweiser – The DRuss B-Flav© of beers™ =

=h=

27. Magic_Al - January 23, 2007

^25. Excellent analysis. Certainly a difference from later Treks where large casts of regulars could be at odds with the producers if guest stars got too much of the spotlight. The format has a huge effect on the kinds of stories that are told and how fresh the show can seem. I could point to “24” as a current show that is in one way a throwback to the format you describe, in that only the star Kiefer Sutherland’s job is safe and everything around him can and does change radically.

It could be interesting to see a new Star Trek that deliberately limited the regular cast to 2 or 3 (or even 1) and made it known that everybody else was just passing through.

28. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2007

Sally Kellerman’s recollections of “Where No Man Has Gone Before:”

We had this silly scene – we were gods, and we were supposed to walk around. .. So Gary and I were gods, and we had these lenses in our eyes – he could stand it for maybe 2 seconds – and were supposed to walk around the lake plucking fruits and cracking it open with our hands. They said, “Rolling” and “Action” and we start walking around there. We can’t see a damn thing. One of us, our foot, slipped into the lake, and we stand back up and then we walk over to pull the fruit off the tree and Gary can’t get it off the tree – still they don’t say cut – and he was supposed to break the fruit open with his bare hands, but he can’t and it’s smooshing in his hands. Nobody is saying cut. We’re going over the dialogue, and we’re supposed to be these indomitable gods. Finally, Gary gives one of his lovely, “Get these f***ing things out of my eyes!” We get them out and we look around, and the crew was all on the ground, wiping the tears out of their eyes from the laughter.

—-

http://movies.ign.com/articles/317/317371p1.html

29. Thomas Jensen - January 23, 2007

I am spellbound reading the discussion about the episode between Mr. Bailey and Mr. Cranston. These insights into the episode bring a new depth to the whole of the series.

And as I read of this I can see that a new movie with even some of these ideas would be a wonderful continuation of the original characters and concept.

Much appreciated. Thanks guys!

30. Xai - January 23, 2007

Great review and I thought most of the posts were well thought out. However…
#20 mark…it’s your opinion… but if you find it all “unacceptable” don’t watch it or buy it. A simple premise.
The remastering project was never “sold” as a fix to all gaffes and make the episodes perfect. No one promised that. I won’t go into the details because that’s been done ad nauseum.
Hitch…. please. Find the translation program. I know there’s coherent thought in most of your posts… but deciphering them is taking too long.

31. Jeremy1975 - January 23, 2007

Speaking of camel toes, Kelso definately had something going on in his pants when he was getting strangled. That’s for sure! Rewind! Pause!

Oh wait, I’m more civilized than that, aren’t I? I’m sorry.

OK, now that I seen the episode, I don’t have a problem with them using the pilot Enterprise model as much anymore, but yes, fix the back of the nacelles. You can barely make out the venting. Otherwise, no complaints except I didn’t think the voyage through this energy barrier was that scary, and I feel it should have been. I got no sense of fear from watching those shots at all. I feel we should have really thought this ship was going to get torn to pieces flying through this great galatic barrier.

Also, in regards to the upcoming Doomsday — i really hope they make that alien ship huge! Maybe even organic where its almost like a big planet eating space worm or something??? That would be cool. But its just gotta be huge — like way bigger than Enterprise and Constellation.

Live long and prosper!

32. Gary Seven - January 23, 2007

I really don’t enjoy being the gadfly, but I would like to present a different opinion of the review, which I disliked, for the following reasons. The review is flippant and, in my opinion, overly negative in an immature kind of way of this fine episode which was responsible for all of Star Trek- It allowed Star Trek to get past “The Cage” instead of dying at birth.
Some examples:
“Captain Kirk decides to forge on ahead, reasoning that since other ships will someday explore this region it’s important for the Enterprise to leave behind its own scarred and blasted recorder marker to warn them off.”

Gimme a break. The Valiant was a primitive old ship from a much earlier time, the Enterprise is a Starship. Jeez. Maybe it actually made sense for Kirk to see what happened to the Valiant. Oh, but that wouldn’t leave room for this joke.
And:
“Dehner doesn’t think anyone should worry, on account of how “Gary-I-Mean-Mr-Mitchell is so totally hot now that I’m withdrawing my sexual harassment complaint for his behavior on the bridge.”
Jeez (Again). Another failed attempt at flippant humor, in my opinion, and reducing Dehner’s motivations to this is simply wrong. It would be good if the reviewer described the episode accurately, even if it would take away the opportunity for the “joke.”
Anyway, don’t want to go on too long. I just thought all the other reviews were maturely written, less flippant, and more respectful of this wonderful TV series. It’s not that I can’t laugh at the show, but when something is good (and WNMHGB is good) reviews shouldn’t be about taking pot-shots in an attempt to be “witty.”

33. Cranston - January 23, 2007

#25 Dennis:

Absolutely. I hadn’t thought about the fact that the pattern did characterize a lot of the early episodes — and, for my money, some of the strongest ones dramatically. There’s a lot to be said for that format, and
(The last major network series that worked that way that I can think of was Quantum Leap, although I’m sure there may be others). I do enjoy the serialized nature of some shows today, but after a while it can start to feel like bait and switch (OK, enough with the tantalizing clues to some deep character secret — tell me a *story*, dammit!)

Another thing that is very true to ’60s TV is the lack of concern with the passage of time in general — episodes were complete stories in themselves, and were meant to be understood and enjoyed by people who’d never seen another episode.

#27 Magic_Al:
‘It could be interesting to see a new Star Trek that deliberately limited the regular cast to 2 or 3 (or even 1) and made it known that everybody else was just passing through.”

I love this idea. It’s more true to the feel of the original show, and it’s also, frankly, a more realistic treatment of military life. In the original, particularly in the first season, you had a lot of familiar and recurring faces, but you also constantly ran into new crew members who came and went. (Remember Lt. Riley? Mr. Kyle? Mr. Leslie, even?) I recently read the Horatio Hornblower series (which was an overt influence on Trek), and I couldn’t shake the constant feeling that THIS was how Trek should have been, particularly in the movies. The Hornblower books chart the career of one officer over the course of decades in the British Navy, from his days as a Midshipman to the end of his career as an Admiral (and even a little vignette of him as a very old retired officer). There were many striking characters in those books, but they came and went. A few stuck around for more than one book, but they weren’t the focus of the narrative. I think the thing that bothers me most about the Star Trek movies, what makes them feel so artificial (and charicature-ey) is that they completely jettisoned this concept. The characters stopped being competent officers serving together in a large service, to a clique of people who were too cool to let anyone else into their little club. The only personal advancement we ever saw was Chekov’s assignment to the Reliant, but after that he didn’t seem to want any job but the same one he had as a 22-year-old ensign. After a while, it just started looking pathetic — it’s like they stagnated, not only professionally, but personally. (Apologies to anyone who disagrees — there’s a lot to recommend the movies too, of course).

34. Cranston - January 23, 2007

Sorry — glitch in my previous post. In the second sentence, the hanging “There’s a lot to be said for that format, and ” should be followed by “it would be nice to see more of that on modern TV series.”

35. Josh T. (Tumultuous) Kirk Esquire' - January 23, 2007

Kirk is to Star Trek as Mayor McCheese is to Ronald McDonaldland.

36. Skippy 2k - January 23, 2007

I finally got to see the shots in the episode with sound. I like seeing the preview images and video but I much prefer seeing how they fit in with the music and live scenes. I ended up liking them better excpet the once shot of the Enterprise from above after escaping the barrier where its limping to the station. I don’t know, the lighting/contrast or something it just could have been better. Over all I really liked it but my main thing was the screens for Dehner and Mitchell… I’ve heard the money/time thing but while I can see the tombstone taking some time to rotoscope/camera match the screens were pretty static without camera movement. Even though I would have liked to see the “T” I can live with it but I hope that they can at some point take a little time to do the screens… the off angle screen especially.

While I admit to being nitpicky at times (not an unusual trekkie trait) I’m not meaning it as a complaint really as I like what they are doing just something I hope to see.

37. foobar - January 23, 2007

Couple of things:

– They animated the clouds in the matte painting.

– Why does a lithium cracking station have a brig?!?

38. Buckaroohawk - January 23, 2007

Another fun review, with chuckles a-plenty.

Gary Seven: I disagree. DRB isn’t being flippant, he’s being witty. There’s humor to be mined in even the best of Trek, and he has a knack for finding it. A little Mystery Science Theater 3000 aimed at Trek ain’t a bad thing.

Oh, and by the way DRB, Kelso wasn’t “alone” when Mitchell strangled him with the power cable. Mitchell did that while Kirk, Spock, and Dehner were standing on the other side of the security force field. That’s why the scene was shown in partial dissolve. Mitchell killed Kelso to keep him from possibly destroying the facility, then he zapped Kirk and Spock and escaped with Dehner. He obviously zapped others (like the good doctor) as he and Dehner made their escape. Of course, I suppose he could have just zapped Kelso as well, but since there weren’t yet any “red shirts” to dispatch, Kelso and his tan shirt would have to serve.

39. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Dear Gary 7 of Nine™,

“The review is flippant and, in my opinion, overly negative in an immature kind of way of this fine episode which was responsible for all of Star Trek”

Is there no flippancy in stating this anonymously? Your post is Grunberg® in the pants my friend. Furthermore, I defend immaturity, defensively. Obviously you do not find yourself in the conundrum or green poontang versus Terran poontang too often and that is sad. In the previous times I would call your rantings POOPYPANTS™, today i shalln’t out of respect for the decorum of Matt Sorum™.

DRuss B-Flav© has higher atomic density in the pants in relation to Gary 7 of Nine™, in my astral chartings to date. Plus the dude is bringing SexyBack™ – YEAH!

you mothergrabbers dont know how to act – YEAH

http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?t=53156

best!!

=h=

40. Spock's Brain - January 24, 2007

I commend CBS-D for doing many things right. What they’ve done, they’ve done tastefully. I thank them for that.

But you can add my voice to the side that’s generally disappointed in all the missed opportunities for enhancement. Like all of you, I’ve seen every one of these episodes an embarrassing number of times, and I want to be given a good reason to watch them yet again, especially when they’re edited and filled with commercials.

I realize that CBS-D has little time and money but, quite frankly, that’s not my problem and has no effect whatever on what I want. And what I want is this: I want not just the episodes that take place in space, but ALL the episodes to be enhanced and refreshed and made new and exciting again. I want opportunities for enhancement and improvement to be seized upon with enthusiasm. I want to see TOS as it would have been if only it had had a very large budget instead of a very small budget.

I realize that my wants go beyond the original “mandate.” But, again, that’s not my problem. I look at an episode like Arena and I think, if the original “mandate” was to do and give the least they can get away with and yet maintain any credibility, then the original “mandate” was minimal and miserly and needs expanding.

I look at those typewritten pages on the view screen and I sympathize with those who become angry with disappointment. It is indeed frustrating. When Kirk looks out at the Horta’s vast egg chamber I want to see it. When he says, “These ruins extend to the horizon,” I want to see it. When we encounter a Gorn ship or a Klingon ship, I want to see it. The fact that they didn’t have money enough to show us these things 40 years ago is no reason to not show us these things now. I’m not impressed with arguments to the effect that not seeing preserves the mystery. By that reasoning, why show anything at all?

I’m not impressed with those who express relief and gratitude with things not changed. Congratulating CBS-D for doing nothing makes no sense to me. By all means keep the iconic matte paintings but add something to them, something visible to the naked eye. Someone said the clouds of the Delta Vega matte were moving. Were they? I replayed it six times. If the movement is so subtle that I really can’t tell if they’re moving or not then it really doesn’t matter does it? I want enhancements that are distinct enough that I can see them for myself rather than come to this site each week to find out what was done. “Oh, the Gorn blinked three times?” Well, I blinked so I missed it.

Are my wants unreasonable? If Smallville or Stargate or whatever can perform CGI miracles from scratch to extraordinarily high modern standards on a weekly basis, it’s hard to understand why CBS-D has such difficulty merely upgrading effects to the much lower standards demanded by the look of the 1960s. If it’s because they aren’t even given money enough to do that much, well, why aren’t they? If they would get in there and consistently give us something to really get excited about, in return, TOS, a proven winner, gets a whole new life in syndication and beyond, along with new sets of TOS DVDs to sell. With that kind of money to be made on this project, why be so stingy?

I want to acknowledge that on some episodes, (Space Seed, The Corbomite Maneuver) high-quality, tasteful and exciting enhancements have been accomplished. But, for me, even these enhancements are nothing more than what I would minimally expect of this project. The Botany Bay was just a very simple CGI model doing very simple things. I’ve seen nothing thus far that, by today’s CGI standards, seems all that impressive. In fact, amateur fans have done work that is at least as good. And just think of the staggering number of missed opportunities—getting close enough to the E to see movement in the windows, a hint of skeleton when someone is zapped by a phaser, water, clouds, birds and other movement added to mattes and cycloramas, interesting displays in view screens, added depth to those tiny sets—the list is endless. It has been said that some of us are never satisfied. Well, that may be, but I could sure be a whole lot more satisfied. I try to be grateful for what enhancements there are, but oh my, overall I can’t help feeling disappointed.

41. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Spock’s Brain™, you make some good points.

HOWEVER….. old h69 is a glass half-full kinda mack daddy. Dude… really? I mean, really?

You obviously have interWEB® techMology. I bet that you drive a mac or atleast windowze XP. You probably do SO from a laptop in a WiFi cuntneckshun® at your local McDonald’s while you scarf down many many many MCDLT’s and supersize fries with a supersized Cherry effing Coke.

Dude there is GREEN POONTANG® out there to be found, because Shat® found it. Not green in the diseased sense of the word but more in the alien techMOlogy sense of the word.

GO. seek out new lifestyles and new civilizations.

best!!

=h=

42. planettom - January 24, 2007

I was struck by the poem that Gary quotes.

“My love has wings
Slender, feathered things
With grace in upswept curve and tapered tip.”

– Tarbolde, “Nightingale Woman” 1996
Canopus Planet

The reference is odd. 1996 would be before Earth has colonized any planets, so, I guess we assume Tarbolde is an alien? Has the poem been translated into English? Has “nightingale” been substituted for some sort of alien feathered creature?

43. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

When I started reading this review, I thought, “What left wing, politically correct, liberal, is writing this? I had to look. Wow. I had no idea Dennis was so far to the left that he would bring in PC terms like “Sexual Harrasement” into the mix and talk about Gary Mitchell as though he were some kind of ape man.

Gary has always been one of my favorite characters and Kirk is the best Captain, period. This has got to be one of the top episodes of all time, right next to “The Cage” and BOT.

I’m continually amazed at how the liberal fringe have taken over in the Trekfandom universe.

I prefer straight forward reviews about the content, writing etc. Not a PC sermon on the characters deficienys as read by a commited liberal.

But…. I guess ole Dennis is preachin to the choir. I know of few Conservative Trek fans and they are the most interesting to talk to anyway.

Why do liberals feel it’s neccesary to ascribe thier belief system onto every aspect of life?

Well, I still enjoy the show and the episodes in general and am greeting every redone episode with the anticipation of a child waiting for Christmas.

I’m not going to let the comments of the PC police change my opinion of the show, or the characters, or any other aspect of the series.

For the record though, I find it amazing that the least PC series of all is the one that garners the most interest and approval world wide and for fourty plus years, at that.

Maybe people want thier Captains to be real men, swashbucklers, womanizers, decision makers, hard chargers….? Maybe people want to hearken back when men were men and women were women and there was a decided deficiency of political correctness.

I know I do.

Quess I’ll have to steer clear of the DRB reviews.

Sheesh! Talk about taking something good and ripping on it, because it doesn’t conform to your POV.

44. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

planettom®

dude that was written in the early 60s,

butt… oddly enough translates to Spice Girls, circa ’96. Also the year that Khan Noonian Singh was launched into outerspace aboard the Botany Bay from a penal colony in Australia.

If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends…..

best!!

=h=

45. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Dear Captain James B. Quirk®,

again.. ANONYMITY is INcredibilty. AS IN, I am NOT listening to you, because you lack credibility. How does anyone know that you’re not DRuss B-Flav©’s ex-wife? AND hot for hitch to makes my butty jelly?

I bet that that you are slime cavity in the pants and may I introducce’ moi?

Me be hitch1969©, and me can love you like no other can. SWISH… every time!

best!!

=h=

46. LavianoTS386 - January 24, 2007

planettom the poem is actually a recycled piece Roddenberry created describing his airplane.

47. Josh T. ( Tenacious) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

James B. not to get into a political diatribe but you have unleashed the proverbial Dogs of War.
You speak of liberals on one hand and “men being real men” on another, since when did being conservative in your mind equate to men being real men? What sort of compensation is that?
because I’ve got some news for you, Star Trek is NOT conservative, Star Trek is probably the epitome of liberal, regardless of which series we are discussing. Infact, all of society and history is the product and result of liberal minded thinking, the “we cans and shoulds” vs. the “We can’t and shouldnts.”
What twisted and perverted rationale did you subscribe to that convinced you Captain Kirk is a Conservative? Or Classic Star Trek for that matter?
Gene Roddenberry was a staunch liberal and created Star Trek.
If you are somehow ascribing some sort of parallel between the Starfleet of Kirk’s century and the military of today as being a demonstration of conservative minded politics, think again, Starfleet is progressive and peaceful, not warmongering or hate filled, which seems to be the temporary benchmark of Conservative philosophy.
I can’t think of too many examples of Starfleet pre-emptive doctrine.
Captain Kirk demonstrated quite the tenacious ability for forgiveness during his tenure as Captain, frequently forgiving and even helping aliens that were trying to kill him just a few moments earlier.
If it bothers you this forum has been hi-jacked by liberal minded individuals, sadly, it isn’t just this forum you will encounter progressive free thinkers. Society is fairly sick of the twisted and grotesque’ meanderings of Conservative philosophy today.
A Paradigm shift has thankfully occured and people are FINALLY waking up to how self -rightous, abusive, crooked, and hypocritical conservative politics truly are, they benefit no one and only INHIBIT progress on a social AND cultural scale. This nation is 10 years behind where it should be as a result of conservative minded politics and attitudes.
Captain Kirk doesn’t practise gunboat diplomacy I hate to tell you, in all the instances of Star Trek battles, Kirk never once fired the first shot, he only responded in self defense. There is a difference in measured caution and outright aggression, and it seems you have confused some aspects of TOS as being conservative minded, when the entire THEME and CONCEOT of the show is about as progressive and liberal as you can possibly get.

48. Lord David - January 24, 2007

Well I’m yet to see the remastered episode, but why wasn’t the typeface changed? Considering that they were stating that this would indeed be updated? And surely it wouldn’t have hurted to convert the details into metric…

Will computer displays be upgraded too?
Not generally. The computer displays had a distinct style that we don’t want to change. In a very few cases, we are planning on bringing up some shots to the quality of the rest of the show. For example, in “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” we are planning on re-setting the text of Gary’s book to eliminate the use of typewriter text.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/25055.html?page=1

49. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Josh T. ( Tenacious) Kirk Esquire’ ®

love ya, babe.

best!!

=h=

50. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

hitch,

You are one strange bird. I stand by my comments and stand on my beliefs.

I don’t think people want to have thier favorite episodes ripped on by the PC police.

I hope to God that they play Kirk, in Trek XI, just like he was played in TOS and NOT like some panty waist, PC liberal.

Long Live Conservative Trek!

51. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

Josh T.

Trek only became liberal after Roddenberry lost his mind and the kiddies took over the show, you know, like Berman and Bragga.

Go back and look at some of the best TOS eps and you will see a definate conservative bent as well as a martial theme.

REMEMBER, Roddenberry was a Cop and a military man. He only leaned to the left and into hedonism after he was contaminated by HollyWeird.

Looking forward to TrekXI being a return to a more REALISTIC Trek, not some left wing, social utopian ideal, that does not work.

Long Live Conservative Trek!

52. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

Oh Lord we have a fanatic in our midst.

Isn’t there a 10,000 a plate GOP luncheon occuring somewhere near you that you should be attending James B?

53. Spock's Brain - January 24, 2007

I guess what it all comes down to is greed. I love the enhancements and I want more of them.

54. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

Hey James B. I’ve got some news for you Dubbya,

Consider this-

If another United States existed in the world, they would attack us for our recent shortsighted actions on the world stage, and restore harmony the way the United States is supposed to do, you know, defend the little guy against the neighborhood bully.
Only, now WE are the neighborhood bully.

We are the mirror universe United States now.

There is your “conservative” legacy you can be proud about and brag to your grandkids.

55. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

Josh T.

It’s obvious to me that you are like a great many of the “fans” I saw at the Vegas Convention. People that are totally disassociated from anything that remotely resembles reality. Basement dwellers that live under thier parents roof and have not experianced life, except through the tube and the net.
People that want to believe they are enlightened because they accept the group-think mentality and embrace the liberal dogma of the extreme fringe.
People that have no real life experiance and deal in fantasy.

We are not the bullies, the bullies are the radical extremeists that want to wipe us out. We are preserving our rights, morals, country and sanctity, by defending ourselves and those that are week, much like Kirk would.

I’m proud of President Bush and liken him to a wise and honorable man of the Bible.

We, the US are todays version of the UFP! It’s the fringe liberals that defend gay rights and woman’s right “choose”, but don’t stand up for the average man, or thier right to protect property and the rights of the unborn that scare the hell out of me.

Mindless Lemmings, running for the cliff face, because it’s the “In” thing.

Yes, give me an intelligent, mature, experianced Trek, not one based on unworkable ideals and doublespeak, like the Clinton regeim.

56. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

“Over all I really liked it but my main thing was the screens for Dehner and Mitchell”

Since there’s handwritten penmarks on it as well, I just rationalize it as a computerwritten report that’s been printed, added to and then scanned by someone lazy. :P

“I had no idea Dennis was so far to the left that he would bring in PC terms like “Sexual Harrasement” into the mix”

Because all women really want it, and yes means no, am I rite!?
Moron.

57. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

EDIT: “No means yes.”

58. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

“It’s the fringe liberals that defend gay rights and woman’s right “choose”, but don’t stand up for the average man, or thier right to protect property and the rights of the unborn that scare the hell out of me.”

Actually, since the US is currently ruled by a pseudo-fascist elite, who justify their infringement of privacy and the use of torture with a war against an abstract enemy, I find it hard to believe anyone supporting them is in a vulnerable position.

59. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

#55

“I’m proud of President Bush and liken him to a wise and honorable man of the Bible.”

What I’m very curious about and interested in James B , for those who adopt and defend the above position is, what would Bush have to do in your estimation and view in ordfer FOR you to infact recognize him as the little tyrant he is?

What must he do BEFORE his actions and agenda become wrong?

You speak of fear, that is what frightens me. You speak of blindly walking into a cliff face, well, just remember, the Germans supported Hitler right up until the end too.

60. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

Or is the point here you could rationalize and justify anything he does.

Amazingly frightening.

61. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

Daggermind….. Yet another example of belief in the liberal media, propaganda machine.

Why attempt to put words in my mouth? At which point did I say “No means Yes?”

Amazing how the average liberal mind is liberal in anything and everything except an opposing viewpoint.

Predictable. :D

At what point did Gary attempt rape? I’m sure that’s what you mean by “No means Yes.”:

My whole point is, where did a simple Trek episode become a soap-box for a writer and I use the term loosely,( “Tin Man” wasn’t all the great of an episode,) to discuss the social/political structure underlying a character .

It seems liberals are not happy, ubless they are tearing something apart, or attacking convention.

I love TOS and I love TOS for what it IS, not what some people try to make it into.

I just don’t see TOS as the slash trash and social utopia that you average basement dwelling “Enterprise” fans do.

Got to love those wacky liberals. Turn every possible thing on the planet into a diatribe against conservatism.

Maybe they could get Bush to play Admiral Bush, of Starfleet. Wouldn’t that be a hoot. Watch the Trek fans go appoplectic. LOL

62. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ll take socialism over Fascism in the disguise of “good” any day of the week.

At least in socialism people that are economically disadvantaged realize it , and dont act like they are CEO’s of a corporation.

Talk about champagne taste on a beer budget.

63. Chris Pike - January 24, 2007

#40. Spock’s Brain – can’t help but agree, it seems 40 years on the VFX team are still suffering from exactly the same problems as when tOS was first made – severe lack of both time and money….

64. Captain James B. Quirk - January 24, 2007

Josh T.

Tell that to the peoples of the former Soviet Union, watch them laugh in your face!!! LOL

Tell that to the “Socialists” down in Cuba.

Better yet, move to Cuba, see how long your vision of socialism lasts.

Stand in line for halv the day to get a ration of bread and toilet paper and you’ll be running back to the US.

Some peoples kids.

65. Holo J - January 24, 2007

# 40 Spocks Brain

Everything you say is spot on and exactly how I feel too. What CBS has done is great, its what they arent doing, the missed opportunities for enhancement that is SO disappointing. I really do get the feeling despite all CBS best efforts and good work this project is being rushed out. It deserves better treatment, especially after all the billions Star Trek has made back for them and since none of the sequels and spin off’s would of existed if its wasnt for this show.

#48 I remember reading that. I wonder why they didnt do anything to it? It was crying out for something new. They even said it themselves. Maybe there is a reason we dont know about.

We have waited for years for this to happened to our beloved show SURLEY it deserves more time and money spent on it?

I just really dont want to see this rushed, I mean what is the point of rushing it now. Sure get it out as best they can for the TV run but you have to hope they will go back and add to these missed opportunities.
I am sure the guys at CBS hope they can. I just hope the money men let it happen.

66. jonboc - January 24, 2007

#37- I thought I saw the clouds drifting slightly too in ne scene…then I thought I Was probably seeing things. Glad to see someone else noticed it. Myabe it did happen after all. lol

67. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

“Daggermind….. Yet another example of belief in the liberal media, propaganda machine.”

Since I dont live in America, I can not be subjected to the so-called “liberal media” the American “conservatives” like to believe exists. I do, however, worry about the state of that nation when its administration is being run by people with no interest in conservation nor civil liberties.

Torture? Rename it and redefine it. Privacy? Can’t have that, people might use it to be terrorists. Wage war? Why not do it with the smallest amount of resources possible and then claim everything’s going fine when this tactic fails?

“Why attempt to put words in my mouth? At which point did I say “No means Yes?””

When you claimed sexual harassment is a liberal invention, you basically spelled out your views on how serious you take people of the opposite gender.

“It seems liberals are not happy, ubless they are tearing something apart, or attacking convention.”

Then you should hate and fear your President, as he’s torn down quite alot of conventions so far.

68. diabolik - January 24, 2007

I love this episode, but I question the logic of Kirk’s statement “Other ships will be coming out here one day” and the need to leave the galaxy as if it were a matter of expansion.

Folks: THERE’S NOTHING OUT THERE BUT EMPTY SPACE!

Why go where there is NOTHING? Makes no sense.

However, the idea of a barrier is not that silly. It fits the theory that there is a hard radiation wall radiating outward from the galaxy that was formed when the galaxy was created. The ever-expanding wall of radiation effectively forms a barrier as you try to go through it.

I thought it was interesting that Jor-El tells the baby Kal-El of a barrier that surrounds the galaxy in “Superman: The Movie” as the ship passes through a red membrane. Anyone else catch that, and do think the writer of that line was paying homage to “WNM”?

69. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - January 24, 2007

My goodness! Is it Sunday morning already? This thread is reading like “The McLaughlin Group.” ;)

God, I love this Country!

#64. Captain James B. Quirk – Thanks for reminding me… I’ve got to pick up bread and toilet paper.

Josh T. – If I wasn’t straight, I’d give you a big kiss on the lips. Oh, what the hell… SMOOOOOOCH! :o

Regarding “no means yes”… do you guys know Lorraine, too? Sweet girl and sooooooo imaginitive! I love the one where she plays the Terran Control Rod Specialist and she wants you to be the visiting Alpha Centaurian Environmental Technician. Whew! Talk about a warp core breach!

Sorry for being off-topic but WNMHGB doesn’t really apply to Lorraine either. :)

70. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

#33: “I think the thing that bothers me most about the Star Trek movies, what makes them feel so artificial (and charicature-ey) is that they completely jettisoned this concept. The characters stopped being competent officers serving together in a large service, to a clique of people who were too cool to let anyone else into their little club. ”

That’s the best, most concise description of that problem with the films that I’ve seen. Thanks.

On the subject of sexual harrassment: most women doing their jobs didn’t like the “Mitchell treatment” in the 1960s. They didn’t like it in the 1950s or the 1940s..there was simply less that they could do about it. That’s *why* the “women’s movement” came to exist – not, as some of you seem to think, because a bunch of bolsheviks got together at the Student Union building one day in 1971 and decided to come piss in your cornflakes.

Call it “PC” and stick your fingers in your ears all you like – I’m not about to adopt the kind of political correctness that suggests humoring stupidity and bigotry so that we can all just get along.

71. Dr. Image - January 24, 2007

Great review, Dennis.
I’d love to see what Zoic would have done with the fx updates.
Having to watch the continual and seemingly painful learning curve of the CBS team is really getting old. IMHO, in this ep, they’ve made unforgivable and obvious blunders regarding the look of this version of the ship.

And #55- Capt. J.B.Q.: Stick to your guns pal, you’ve got my vote.
(Let the bash-fest begin…but then again we’re used to getting spewed with uber-liberal hate venom, aren’t we? How ironic.)

72. Jim J - January 24, 2007

Oh, Lord-here we go!!!! I always enjoy Dennis Bailey’s review, and work…and I’m a conservative. What is pathetic is, why are so called liberals and conservatives demeaning themselves and our country further by acting this way on a message board devoted to STAR TREK?! Go somewhere else to express your political beliefs. I could be wrong, but I truly took what Dennis said in his review to be touches of humor…not opportunties for political beliefs statements and/or opening up the political “can of worms”. It’s James B. and Josh T. that have done this. I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong, since I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal…but…I seriously doubt this is the kind of stuff that “AP” put the site up for.

I’d much rather chat about “the Shat”, rock about “the Spock”, and shout for joy over “McCoy”! In other words, in my opinion, let’s get back to the subject at hand, Star Trek. Who are we to say WHAT Roddenberry believed at any one time in his life. I know my views are constantly chaging. Roddenberry was a thinking man. Thinking men don’t get stuck in their own ways and never think or change. I bet if you viewed different parts of his life (age levels) he had varied beliefs about politics, God, and life.

Oh, and one last thing…in the famous words of “The Shat”:
“It’s just a god-damned TV show!”

Morals are for men, not Gods!!!!!

73. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

“Let the bash-fest begin…but then again we’re used to getting spewed with uber-liberal hate venom, aren’t we? How ironic.”

Weird how neocons can invade an entire country and get ten of thousands killed, but squeal at written criticism. Grow up.

74. Jim J - January 24, 2007

Suggestions for political debate places: trekweb or trektoday

Hailing frequencies closed!

75. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

#73: “Weird how neocons…”

It’s worth saying that in my experience most principled, mature *conservatives* (as distinct from “neocons”) don’t think on-the-job sexual harassment is okay either, any more than such responsible folks now think that slavery is a great good idea. ;)

76. An olde timey fan - January 24, 2007

#43

I agree with your assessment.

Roddenberry was, of course, a whack-job who cheated on his wife, cheated on his girlfriends, bnaged the hired-hands, and spent perhaps too much time at the wrong end of a bong. If memory serves, he and Barrett were married in a Budhist ceremony. Of course, that tidbit is thirty years old or more, since I really could not care less about the Great Freak of the Galaxy’s personal life.

As many early threads explore, Trek was not Roddenberry’s product except in name. Gene Coon was certainly no Red Diaper Baby — he was a USMC veteran of the Island Hopping campaign. So too most of the rest of the crew.

While Trek was almost blasphemous at the time with its Progressive (meaning, “Bolshevik”) agenda, the great irony is that it is perceived as traditionalist by today’s standards. Western civilization has gone so far into the world of H.G. Well’s “The Time Machine” that it scarcely can relate to what I call “The Before Time” when men were men, so to speak. Indeed, most of the posters to this news site would perish quickly were our economy to fail, so distanced are they from knowledge, let alone the skills of basic providence.

To illustrate, Star Trek was crafted by men, goofy Roddenberry included, who still needed to make terrible decisions, put hteir lives on the line, and were held accountable for their actions by themselves, their countrymen and their God.

Today’s Trek spin-offs — their creators and their fans — know nothing of such a life. Indeed, all they know about “life on the edge” is what they have witnessed on television!

In earlier stories, I tried to relate some of my fathers experience in the United States Navy where he served on two aircraft carriers and a destroyer-escort at the time Star Trek was made. At least one poster here chastized me for repeating Dad’s stories. Can you believe that? The fanboys spend countless hours and not a little energy debating the points of a completely fictional world of Make Believe — but I am somehow deficient for telling the true stories of my own father, from not more than 50 years ago.

Amazing.

But this is the world we inhabit. PC liberalism, which is really Soviet Bolshevism with a velvet glove (aka, “Communism with a human face”), as it turns out can exist only so long as the Sheople are unaware of their serfdom. Consumerism, materialism, and endless distractinos through avenues such as modenr television programming are excellent media for such distraction.

The old Star Trek is a threat to the True Believers, the Useful Idiots amongst us because it was a Revolutionary product – not a product of the New Age but merely transitional. Therefore, it contains elements of the unreconstructed life of a free and virtuous America, heroes intact, more republican than proletarian, more true to our innermost selves than the thin gruel of superficial, immature, fantastic PC balderdash we’ve been fed since Star Trek.

One final thought. you note that Star Trek persists after 40 years without benefit of hype or promotion, becasue its stories are timeless in their appeal. This is the proof of the pudding, you realize! Our post-modern, post-Christian, post-American age requires continual bombardment by propaganda and coercive threats to maintain its stranglehold on the individual mind. Witness the vile replies to your post by self-appointed Capos as proof-positive of this assertion!

Trek will survive because it represents to us what is true and noble in our natures, even if imperfectly so and depsite the Age of Aquarius leanings of its creator who ultimately could not transcend his own Protestant American cultural upbringing, despite his best efforts at willful rebellion.

Those posters here who rant and rave at the mere mention of such fundamentally true and self-evident observations are, in fact, merely frightened by the truth as a child is frightened by the boogyman.

Pity. But perhaps some of those profound truths, Soviet agitprop not withstanding, will break through their impressive, propaganda supported psychological defenses.

Let us hope so!

77. Babble_One - January 24, 2007

People, how about we leave the contemporary politics at home and just concentrate on reviewing or commenting on the Star Trek episode in question… hmm?

78. Anthony Pascale - January 24, 2007

Quirk

it is you who have tried to turn this review into a poltical fight. This site is apolitical and does not condone such things. There are places for that…this isnt one of them.

next person to make a poltical attack will no longer be welcome here.

thanks

Anthony

79. Doug - January 24, 2007

re 20, mark 2000

I totally agree, they are making a very inconsistent mess of the effects from episode to episode. I watched only the first 15 minutes of WNMHGB, and thought it was awful. I like cool new angles on the Ent. but not all these shots of the Ent. banking and swooping in… it’s not the right movement for the ship in my mind.

re 22, not sure what you’re saying Hitch?

80. Jim J - January 24, 2007

Thanks, Anthony. I almost want to use on of hitch1969’s sayings, but I wouldn’t dare-lol!!!! Back to Star Trek!! YIPEE!!!!!!!!

81. Doug - January 24, 2007

re 30

(sorry catching up on my reading)… but i don’t think Mark is wrong, or looking for every fix… but rather, the more obvious fixes, that CBS-D has already shown that they will do on a rather hit or miss basis, which sort of creates a new inconsistency to the look as a whole from episode to episode.

also the effects in this episode (albeit my opinion)… were terrible, flat and cartoony.

– on another note, someone mentioned star trek V and Kirk thinking it might have been Gary. What a cool idea, that would have really not only made sense, but saved that movie. Too bad, missed opportunity.

d

82. Doug - January 24, 2007

re 40

Spocks Brain,,, you are absolutely right. Couldn’t have said it better. Again, if Battlestar Galactica can blow me away from week to week, why can’t Trek enhanced blow me away….

If they couldn’t really put the time and money into it now, they should have stuck with high def cleanups. Saved the enhancement for another day and do it right. I’m afraid these will never be revisited and done right.

d

83. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

Oh, there’s no end to this. I’m sure that over the next several decades the episodes will be redone time and again – every time technology changes and/or sales of the “current version” flag a bit.

84. Jim J - January 24, 2007

#83-Dennis:

I think you are exactly right! Honestly, let’s say the movie ends up being about TOS and it’s a huge hit (wishful thinking, I fear, but…)…I bet ya Paramount will say-let’s update the original series even more! I can truly forsee TOS “original”, TOS “remastered”, and TOS “21st Century Edition” or some other starnge and distinguishing name. In a way, it will kill some of us old geezer (you robbed my childhood) type of fans. BUT, in a way, wouldn’t it just be COOL to think there was that much demand for Star Trek out there? I timeless treasure!

By the way, Dennis, any news on “Exeter”? I keep looking for the next part of the episode. It really hooked me and I’m almost as anxious for it as I am for “remastered Doomsday!”

85. Jim J - January 24, 2007

#82

I could be way off base, but I think this was a last minute decision and Paramount is sticking their big toes into the water. If well received along with the movie, I could see them jumping in head first and giving you exactly what you are asking for (and giving some old die-hards a heart attack, or worse). “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it!!!” lol

86. Jim J - January 24, 2007

OOPS-last minute decision due to two reasons:

1. All of the recent changes at Paramount and the right people finally said, hey, what about Star Trek?”

2. Panic struck them when they realized it was “year 40″ and nothing was being done!!!!

87. Doug - January 24, 2007

Yknow Jim J, I think you may be right about that… I have some hope for the franchise! -d

88. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

#75: “It’s worth saying that in my experience most principled, mature *conservatives* (as distinct from “neocons”) don’t think on-the-job sexual harassment is okay either, any more than such responsible folks now think that slavery is a great good idea.”

Of course. I know several conservatives (social or economic) myself and have no problem with them! It’s the “Kodos the Executioner apologists” I can’t stand, at home or anywhere else in the world. :)

As for the episode, despite seeing the “obviousness” of CGI here and there, it mostly enhances the mood of an already great episode. The interplay between Kirk and Mitchell really sells the concept of the captain having to deal with his friend and collegue becoming a threat. Very engrossing.

89. Matt Wright - January 24, 2007

#86 — Your second scenario is the what I heard floating around in the rumor mill. They sort of woke up and were like crap! ST is 40! HD is all the rage… but oh crap the effects look horrible when shown in 1080p! and thus very hurriedly CBS-D and TOS Remastered was born.

90. CmdrR - January 24, 2007

25 & 33 (just catching up…)
“Supernatural” works with traveling brothers chasing ghosts from one plotline to the next. Yes, it allows both continuity and the freshness of new situations each week.
As for flippancy, come on! Of course there are stupid actions in all of drama, or else most dramatic efforts would stall. How many movies/tv shows could be stopped two minutes in, if only Gilligan would tell Skipper he’s the one who stole the coconut?
Trek’s Kirk is no worse for making ‘poor’ decisions, even if it gives us the occassional laugh.

91. Jim J - January 24, 2007

Dagger-

Sorry, but can’t we just talk about STAR TREK, like AP pretty much hinted at?

Matt-

LOL-For some reason, I’m just able to picture that moment in my mind when the execs (new or old) suddenly realized they were on the verge of dropping the ball on something they’d planned a future movie for! I can see the “OH **** (insert explative here)” look on their faces.

92. Robert Bernardo - January 24, 2007

Dennis Bailey wrote:

> Turns out there’s a big Energy Wall around our galaxy, despite the fact
> that the only thing more scientifically ridiculous would be a big Energy
> Wall around the heart of our galaxy…

Sorry but I watched a television science special some time ago which postulated that our galaxy had concentric energy rings (radiation belts?). And so the idea of an “energy field” around our galaxy and around the heart of the galaxy are not so ridiculous after all.

93. Rodney King's Star Trek DVD Collection - January 24, 2007

Can’t we all just get along?

94. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

I tend to think that it’s a function of the Paramount/CBS Paramount split – after CBS Paramount took over control of the tv shows and new management took a look at what they had, they made some different decisions than had been made by the “old guard.”

95. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

#92: “Sorry but I watched a television science special some time ago which postulated that our galaxy had concentric energy rings (radiation belts?). ”

0kay, this is clearly evidence of the possibility of a giant forcefield surrounding the galaxy. Because the word “energy” is used in both cases.

96. Jim J - January 24, 2007

“Do we know for sure that there isn’t another kind?” (of energy?) Just playing devil’s advocate here. I never have really thought of it as a forcefield, anyway, more like a barrier. Barriers can be caused by more than just energy. Either way, for 1960’s TV, there were lots of writers who envisioned a lot of things that we have now found as fact, and lots of writers who totally missed the boat.

97. Kyle Nin - January 24, 2007

I’m glad that they’re embellishing the effects instead of staying exactly like the originals. I don’t see it as harming anything. Yes, it shows more detail that the original did not try to portray. But it’s not adding anything to the episode, as far as the story is concerned (like Star Wars Special Edition did).

Maybe I just don’t get it. It seems fine to me.

I’m hoping to see more of this, whenever they can do it.

Oh, and if you’re going to use other shows’ FX as comparison, don’t use BSG or Firefly. As far as I can remember, those don’t have many FX in them. A lot of space shots, but that’s about it. Use Stargate as an example, instead. SG-1 and Atlantis have had several beautiful FX shots that are very rare on the two shows you mentioned in your review.

Or even use the recent Trek shows.

98. OM - January 24, 2007

…Some corrections on the cast issues for this episode:

* Paul Carr: Roddenberry, Carr, Justman and Solow have all stated for the record that Carr was only a guest star on this episode, and no option for a regular series role was ever offered. If you really get anal about this, you can take his tan shirt, switch it to red. and his demise is all but certain. NBC was actually impressed with his performance in this episode, but Roddenberry and Solow had other plans for the ship’s helmsman’s position – George Takei.

* Note that Eddie Paskey, “Lt. Leslie”, gets an uncredited role as a blue-shirt in the first DV brig scene. The fact that he’s wearing blue probably explains why he survives.

* Paul Fix was brought in by Roddenberry not as a good casting choice, but a deliberately poor one. The idea was to put the most inappropriate actor he could in the role, then when NBC bitched about the performance, Gene could simply go “hey, idiots, I had the right actor all along, and you told me you didn’t want him!” and then offer up DeForrest Kelley as he’d originally wanted all along.

* Andrea Dromm was *never* intended for anything other than a disposable guest role. Roddenberry was using the situation in an attempt to get into Dromm’s pants. According to all accounts he never even came close, although to this day Dromm would never discuss anything regarding the matter.

* NBC reportedly had no real problems with the idea of retaining Lloyd Haynes as Lt. Alden, as it promoted that racial diversity that the networks were striving for in the 60’s. However, by that time Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols had become “connected”, and casting Nichelle in a retooled – or de-tooled, if you want to get innuendo about it – role would fill the racial and gender diversity slots with one casting.

…On a side note, one of the biggest debates in Trek fandom has been whether Mitchell or Spock was First Officer during this part of the mission. Fans are split about 50/50 on this, with one half taking the side of Vonda “My books suck, but I don’t care, fanboy!” McIntyre’s insistance that Starfleet would never allow a captain to choose his bestus friend as his XO, while fans who’ve had military experience know that on naval vessels the XO is more often than not either someone who rose up through the ranks with the captain, or someone who’d previously served under the captain on another command, and had gained either a “trusted friend” or “father-son” relationship, or a combination of the two. This argument – combined with the realization that her books were poorly written as a lot of fans discovered over time – and Vonda’s asinine vehemence towards anyone who’d disagree with her on this or any of her errors, is what thankfully chased her away from writing more Trek novels.

…For those siding with Vonda, I submit that if you take note of Mitchell’s actions prior to getting zapped, they’re more in line with coordinating ship’s operations as an XO would do. Spock just plays chess and runs the computers.

99. OM - January 24, 2007

RE: Daggermind’s trolling comments: Do us a favor and keep all that pseudocommie faux-democrat claptrap out of here? Either keep the discusions on TOSR, or take that garbage elsewhere.

[shakes head in utter dismay]

100. OM - January 24, 2007

Doug wrote:
- on another note, someone mentioned star trek V and Kirk thinking it might have been Gary. What a cool idea, that would have really not only made sense, but saved that movie. Too bad, missed opportunity.

…When JM Dillard wrote her novelization of STV, she changed the barrier back to being on the outer edge of the galaxy. However, this somehow slipped past Paranoidmount during the final review, although references to the first mission there and the loss of Mitchell were caught and purged. Many fans have speculated that the plot would have worked better if “God” had turned out to have been a resurrected Mitchell, and some have pointed out that had the Klingon rescue still been allowed to work, it would have been almost the same sort of ending as WNMHGB – fire a phaser and crush the invincible God Mitchell with a ton of rocks.

101. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

#96:”“Do we know for sure that there isn’t another kind?” (of energy?) ”

This is true. It’s also possible that the galaxy is a kind of broach on the equivalent of a black velvet blazer worn by God’s girlfriend. Actually I kind of like that…my point would be that there’s no reason whatever to suspect that is the case and many reasons to question its plausibility. Ditto the “Great Energy Barrier.”

#97: “Oh, and if you’re going to use other shows’ FX as comparison, don’t use BSG or Firefly. As far as I can remember, those don’t have many FX in them. A lot of space shots, but that’s about it. Use Stargate as an example, instead. SG-1 and Atlantis have had several beautiful FX shots that are very rare on the two shows you mentioned in your review.

Or even use the recent Trek shows.”

No. BSG and certainly “Firefly” made extensive use of digital mattes and set extensions in addition to the “pure CG” space exteriors. I think that ZOIC’s work is the best on television these days, and much prefer it to either the Stargates or the recent Trek shows. So I hold it up as the current standard.

#93: I think Vonda McIntyre is a wonderful writer. Her very first novel, “The Exile Waiting,” remains one of my all-time favorites.

Since there’s no substantial evidence that Mitchell is the exec of the ship in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” I favor the simpler answer – that Spock is Kirk’s first officer in this episode just as in the remainder of the series. I prefer it simply because it doesn’t contradict anything we know and doesn’t require invention or interpretation to support it.

Given the absence of real evidence, whether one chooses Spock or Mitchell one is right – at least until and unless Abrams weighs in. ;)

102. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

Corrections to #101:

Reply to “93” was actually a reply to “98.”

Also, it’s spelled “brooch,” not “broach.” :)

103. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Meow! The catfights in this thread remind me of the time when I was back at University, living with one chick that had a car and an apartment and cheating on her with a chick from my Textiles class. Obv. I just took Textiles to meet chicks, I really didnt get it and was the only dude in the thing, but it was the best D minus I ever earned. Anyway, when the chick I was living with found out about the other chick… ay caramba, Bart Simpson!

Needless to say I let them hash that out and moved in with some dude whose parents gave him a house or something like that. Then it was bachelor city once again. And life goes on.

This thread reminds me of those times in my life. They were grate.

best!!

=h=

104. Kyle Nin - January 24, 2007

#101:

If you say so. But when I think of excellent special FX, BSG and Firefly aren’t the ones that spring to mind.

105. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2007

Well, for me they do – far moreso than the Stargates or later Trek.

106. New Horizon - January 24, 2007

#104

Good lord man, the new BSG FX are absolutely stunning.

107. Kyle Nin - January 24, 2007

#106:

SOME of the new FX are stunning. But for the most part there isn’t much that blows me away. I really don’t expect the show to have any breathtaking effects, though, since the show is focused more on character interaction than space action scenes. It is nice whenever it has a stunningly good effect, but they seem to be few and far between.

108. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

91. “Sorry, but can’t we just talk about STAR TREK, like AP pretty much hinted at?”

Well, fascist children like OM and James B. Quirk started promoting their ideology in this thread, so why not follow TOS’s ideals and point out their folly?

109. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

* breaking out the Orville Redenbacher® *

=h=

110. Doug - January 24, 2007

re 97…

Have to chime in on effects… I’m floored that this could be veiwed any other way… The BSG visual effects consistently blow me away. They have depth and scale, and are beautifully choreographed, complicated shots.

Firefly was good too, but I think BSG has upped the ante, and I agree w Dennis Bailey, this is the new standard to measure against…

d

111. Kyle Nin - January 24, 2007

I guess everyone else is seeing something I’m not. (Even though I’m watching the same show. How is that?)

There is one thing about the BSG “effects” that they’ve mainly gotten rid of within the last season or so: the wobbly zoom-ins and zoom-outs. I don’t know about anyone else, but those were just annoying and made me dizzy. I’m glad that they’ve scaled that back.

Oh? This is Star Trek website? Sorry.

112. TomBot2007 - January 24, 2007

Wow, I’m actually beat reading this thread! So, much so, my own thoughts have since departed… except for I too would like to say that this Review was a pretty darn entertaining read! And the thread too, except when it started to look like a dog chasing it’s tail sometimes. I loved the observations by Dennis Bailey about the story structure of TOS and the character scheme. I think it’s odd they way some try to belittle Roddenberry and his contributions to Trek by pointing out how “humanly” fallible he was!!! Pah!!! So, silly!

113. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

Look folks, I think the bigger thing to remember here is the mathematical fact that when you take something that is really cool times something that sucks in any way shape or form, the resulting sum always has to be something that ends up sucking.

Fingerman™ say a negative times a negative equals a positive. One, Two, Three…. “twenty”, “seven”…. One, Two, Three, Four, Five = “Forty Five!” Listen to the Fingerman™, ese!

Let’s try an be REAL particular in choosing what sucks and what doesnt suck, please.

best!!

=h=

114. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

110: “The BSG visual effects consistently blow me away. They have depth and scale, and are beautifully choreographed, complicated shots.”

The only problem is NBSG often features much more complicated shots than TOS. There’s fighters and shuttles and transports of all sizes, whereas in TOS you would be lucky to see two ships and a planet in the background. I like seeing something extra on episodes like this, but I wouldn’t want to copy NBSG completely. Slightly enhanced shots and improved matte paintings like the ones seen so far are good enough, imho.

115. hitch1969© - January 24, 2007

oh but if you DO decide that something sucks… please make sure that you multiply it by something else that sucks SO that we can get a resulting really cool thing.

Once again, it’s math. Logic and science. All the things that make old hitch1969© the rational, stoic, and emotionless being that I am. Behold the Vulcan who laughs! I’m very Sybok in the pants that way. And about as popular, apparently.

=h=

116. Picardsucks - January 24, 2007

I want the last word!!!!

117. Doug - January 24, 2007

re 114…

yeah you’re absolutely right… NBSG style is very different from Trek, but just in terms of quality, and the beauty of the effects… we could be doing some of that!

118. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - January 24, 2007

Mmmmm… I’m just not sure if the nacelle caps look right? ;)

119. gregored - January 24, 2007

Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth about effects in Trek and in general. I think that the best episodes use FX to help move the story forward, hence everyone’s anticipation for “The Doomsday Machine”, and the praise for “Space Seed”. A lot of the time, though, the shots of the Enterprise in TOS did little more than serve as transitions between scenes. Since most of the story-telling in TOS did not utilize FX, CBS-Digital is limited in one more way as to what they can update. (as opposed to updating, say TNG)

More recent shows, Trek, and otherwise, obviously use FX shots more to tell the story, as they are not as constrained by the technical and budgetary difficulties TOS suffered in the 60s. Sometimes, the FX do add a lot to the story, sometimes they seem to be a crutch for the writers, which may be one reason most TOS episodes still hold up, even with the original effects.

greg

120. Kyle Nin - January 24, 2007

Doesn’t the Galactic Barrier show up in another episode? I’m wondering if they’ll reuse shots from this episode, or create new ones. New camera angles, I mean.

121. Picardsucks - January 24, 2007

in by any other name

122. DaggerMind - January 24, 2007

119: “Sometimes, the FX do add a lot to the story, sometimes they seem to be a crutch for the writers, which may be one reason most TOS episodes still hold up, even with the original effects.”

Yes, in that era SFX were too expensive and too difficult to pull of as anything more than small snippets. With that in mind, people needed to be hooked by either the story itself or the characters.

Still, it’s strange that, even with many similar, technical limitations present at the beginning of TNG, they didn’t quite manage to create the same kind of interesting cast like TOS. I can barely stand to watch TNG+ era shows and it only gets worse as time goes on. Everything from the change in Federation policies, to the continued simplification of the recurring alien cultures, to the horrendous pink&blue nacelle-schemes. :(

123. Aphelion - January 24, 2007

I disagree with the assessment that the “R” glitch should be retained to represent a snapshot in Trek’s evolution. The original version can do that just fine. This is TOS-Remastered and the opportunity should have been seized. I may actually pass on the DVDs based on my disappointment over this decision alone.

124. Josh T. ( Theopolis ) Kirk Esquire' - January 24, 2007

It isn’t an R, it is a T which has simply cracked and degraded creating a Rorshach type image of an R.

That wasn’t hard was it.

125. Scott - January 24, 2007

I’m with Aphelion (#123). Fix the fixable. Why not? It’ll make it more fun to compare it to the original.

After all, one thing I haven’t heard a lot of on all these Remastered threads is: why did P-CBS change that great old effect? They should’ve left it alone! I hear a lot more: why didn’t they change that creaky old effect! That’s bothered me for 40 years!

And of course, fix the nacelles. Both ends of the consarned things, now.

Scott B. out.

126. Xai - January 24, 2007

Sesame Street…. Today is sponsored by the letter Q. (no, not him…)

Q… as in
Quiet the dam political crap… especially after AP called for the end.
Quit the R and T stuff. It didn’t change… it won’t until the next round…maybe… but it’s too late. All the bitching about “they did this.. why not do that too?” doesn’t cure it and it’s been DAYS now and this still isn’t out of the collective system?

Finally… Hitch…..coherance….please?

127. Bob Jones - January 25, 2007

As I indicated, this has never been one of my favorite episodes owing in large part to Mitchell and Dehner. Mitchell has always seemed creepy to me and the episode takes very little time humanizing him before he gets zapped.

It just occurred to me that if the initial chess game had been between Kirk and Mitchell, they could have made Mitchell much more sympathetic from the first. This would also nicely dovetail with the “chess game” Kirk and Mitchell play on the planet’s surface which Kirk wins.

(I realize that of course the Kirk/Spock dynamic is incredibly important for the rest of the series and having them play chess sets their relationship on track. But I contend that the *episode* would have been better if Kirk had played Mitchell.)

128. Alex Frazer-Harrison - January 25, 2007

The decision to keep the R was in fact one of the only decisions made right in this whole “Remastered” debacle. People can say “oh this is just Trek Remastered – you can always see it in the original version on DVD”. But people seem to have chosen to ignore the fact that — in lieu of any evidence to the contrary – CBS does appear intent on replacing the original episodes with these Remastered versions. DVD only has a couple more years left to it before we’re all forced to buy HD, after which the original versions of TOS — based on everything I’ve heard and someone please correct me — will not be available in the new formats. So they’ll disappear forever. Everyone is casually saying “change this – change that” and they’re ignoring the long term consequences of all this. I guess that’s what happens when we adopt a disposible iPod mentality towards everything.

129. SPOCKBOY - January 25, 2007

I agree about the dreaded “R”
I’m assuming that CBS-DIGITAL’s raison d’etre IS TO DE-CHEESIFY tos. The R wasn’t cheesy, but the chronometer was. BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS?
My main problem with CBS is inconsistancy…
They fix the screen on “FRIDAYS CHILD”-which wasn’t bad to begin with.
They don’t on “WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE”-which was horrific with its wonderful “bad typewriter with circles made in pencil” look.

The main argument I consistantly hear is lack of time. I am here to dispute that argument in one particular case. In WINK OF AN EYE they did a wonderful job of fixing the phaser effect with Kirk, Spock and the redshirts. The original effect wasn’t horrible, but the new one was definitely sweet.
I couldn’t help but notice that when the Scalosians awful (looking) machine blew up, the original effect of superimposing a “sparkler” was painfully obvious. You can actually see the steel rod!
Why fix the not so bad effects, and leave the horrible ones?
So I thought okay, I’m gonna try something. I opened up Adobe Illusion and with no pre-conceived ideas in my head, I fixed the effect in 27 minutes exactly.
Fixed meaning “covered up” the sparkler rod…..:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjZbHNzbOtU

130. Matt Wright - January 26, 2007

wow good work SpockBoy, makes ya wonder eh? BTW: What is Adobe Illusion? I have never heard of it.

131. FredCFO - January 26, 2007

Of course, the barrier shows up again in “By Any Other Name” in the second season and “In Truth Is There No Beauty” in the third.

They should have fixed the R and the computer records. The chronometer was fixed, why not this stuff?

132. SPOCKBOY - January 26, 2007

Well Matt,
It’s an amazing program that gives you a HUGE library of effects that you can alter and change. You can superimpose these effects over anything you like.
Actually I made a mistake though, Adobe didnt create it. It was a company called Wondertouch. Check it out…

The program is called PARTICLE ILLUSION.

http://www.wondertouch.com/

133. tuc - January 26, 2007

Well people here sure seem to differ about the time-pressure issue. It seems to me that if CBS Digital needs to get out the rest of the episodes that will air this season, plus finish all the 1966-67 episodes in 1080i by the end of the year, that they are under some pretty heave time pressure.

On the quality-of-SFX issue, do keep in mind that it’s much harder to put new SFX onto existing film than to do SFX for a new show as it’s being shot. (Space shots excepted for TOS-R, of course.)

#33 “The last major network series that worked that way that I can think of was Quantum Leap, although I’m sure there may be others).”

Nowhere Man beats Quantum Leap by a half-decade or so (though I suppose it might not be considered “major”). I’m sure there have been others, but I don’t watch much tv. #90 mentions Supernatural, which I haven’t even heard of. (I enjoyed Nowhere Man but it got cheezy at the end.)

134. mrregular - January 28, 2007

During the final scene on the bridge, when Kirk is talking with Spock, the “beep beep” of the Valiant’s recorder-marker can be heard in the background.
Perhaps we are to assume that the recorder-marker is off screen, on the bridge, physically connected by USB cable to Spock’s computer console, in an attempt to gain more data from it.
That’s the only logical explanation that makes sense to me.

135. Ralph - February 4, 2007

I found a deleted scenes on mytube of “Where No Man Has Gone Before”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xe5SUxq25I&mode=related&search=

136. RD - December 7, 2008

Too bad they didn’t put Spock back into his correctly colored division blue uniform. That should have been a relatively easy change.

137. RD - December 7, 2008

What about restoring the original pilot? That seems like a no-brainer. What an incredible bonus to add to the re-mastered DVD set.

138. Geoff - April 25, 2009

It is utterly inconceivable that the microfilmed-typewritten reports on Dehner’s and Mitchell’s ESP ratings was not remastered. Those shots are horrible! Who would still be using a typewriter in the 23rd century (EMP from a nuclear blast?), and why are the details of their lives so unimaginative?!

Dehner was born on “Delman”, and lives on the street “1489” in the city of “Delman” in the state of “Newst(cut off)”. Born 1089.5, and height 5′ 2″.

Mitchell was born on “Eldman”, and lives on the street “8149” in the city of “Eldman” in the state of “New(cut off). Born 1087.7, and height 5′ 9″.

What a coincidence that one was born in a place that’s a typo of the other! And that they both still live on the same places as their birth! And that they were born within 24 hours of each other but have different ages (If you divide 1000 stardates by 365, you get almost 3 a day). And the actors were actually the same height! (Possibly cast after these SFX shots were created.) And their street names have the same numbers!

And their birth stardates are only days prior to the stardates of this episode! I can’t believe that Roddenberry and co. wouldn’t approve of Okuda & co. revising those screens and putting more realistic and imaginative information on the screen, using an ultra-fast scroll of black text on white, so fast it’s all on the screen in a tenth of a second.

Okay, I’d fix it up good.

Dehner: born planet Mars, 2 June 2243, SD (052)0513; Last Stationary Address 1489 Opportunity Way, unit 623, Memnonia City, Mars Colony

Mitchell: born planet Earth, 21 February 2233, SD (051)3114; Last Stationary Address 81948 Delman Road, unit 6942, Oakland, California, USA, Earth

No resemblance whatsoever! Each is fairly distinct (except 1489 and 81948, which are homages to the original detail).

139. Geoff - April 26, 2009

Re those stardates, I considered the matter very thoroughly. The original series stardates should have exhausted in 10 years. This episode alone spans from 1312.4 (opening entry) to 1313.8 (approaching Delta Vega) – just a few days for 1.4 stardates. Birth of Mitchell, 1087.7 – 294.7 stardates, which is a few months.

So, in my concept, stardates are often quoted with only the relevant digits (like saying “Happened back in ’69” or “Back on March 9″). But the computer adds the other digits automatically to a captain’s log. Now, what digits?

I figure three additional digits in Kirk’s day, two additional digits by Picard’s day (Starfleet realized it would be less ambiguous to have a century’s worth at a time). The first two digits are the “century” – 05 would be about 2223 to 2322, 06 would be 2323 to 2422, with 0641001 being about the year 2364, 0642001 being about the year 2365, etc. That enables Picard’s entries to be accurate, and the hidden digits for all of Kirk’s log entries in the series would be 054 – so Doomsday Machine’s 4202.4 becomes (054)4202.4.

But that’s just my idea.

And oh yes, Dehner’s height would be 171 cm, Mitchell’s 175 cm. Or whatever the actual heights of the actors are.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.