Scott Atwell Star Trek Discussion thread (Series and Films) (3 Viewers)

[FanCollector]

Parmen was younger than 126? Or than 117??Windom was all over those Quinn Martin shows.

 

[Nelson Au]

Sorry Lee, younger then 126.Yeah, I haven't seen too many Quinn Martin shows lately, but I believe you! He was a steady working actor.

 

[Nelson Au]

I've been into a Star Trek The Motion Picture fix recently with the Dec 7 anniversary as you know. I was listening to the newly remastered soundtrack and was thinking there was so much terrific material there and some of the unused or earlier versions of some of the tracks really transports you to the unknown.Also, recalling the dialogue, given the kind of action man Kirk is, can you believe he could have standed being a desk bound Chief of Operations for two years? It's no wonder he was fixated at taking the Enterprise back from Decker! I don't know why I haven't thought of that before. Need a hint regarding Parman?

 

[FanCollector]

Yes, apparently I need a lot of hints. I gather from earlier guesses that he was older than 117 but younger than 125?One of the complaints about TMP has been Kirk and Spock acting "out of character" and I think that is an unfair criticism (although some other ones strike me as legitimate). Both characters have very clear reasons in the story for acting the way that they do throughout the first half of the movie and part of the journey is returning them to their old selves; you have touched on what is making Kirk act so differently. (Interestingly, I find McCoy in character throughout--he puts on an initial show of reluctance, but it's easy to talk him out of it because he really isn't reluctant at all.)Perhaps it was riskier than Roddenberry realized to tell a story in which the lead characters fans had been missing for ten years spend half the movie or more out of character, even if the changes make psychological sense. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't have done so, but I do wonder if he anticipated the negative reaction the choice would engender.

 

[Nelson Au]

Lee, Yes Parman's age was an even number between 117 and 125 when he married Philana.I think when I first saw the movie, I was too young to understand what a midlife crisis is. But I could understand Kirk was bored. It's been years, but I did read the novelization and that's my recollection. I always wondered why they didn't include the small plot element that his girlfriend was in the transporter accident. But then there was no backstory, so I can see why. Or Roddenberry added it for the novelization from earlier story drafts. I was really hoping that the scene with Admiral Nogura was actually filmed and reinserted into the Directors Cut. I thought that might add some fire to Kirk's motivations. But I guess the scene in the shuttle pod basically serves that point. Spock is clearly unhappy and searching for more. And I remember Harlan Ellison's review of TMP that was in Starlog magazine back in the day. He referred to DeForest Kelley's performance as a marvel or some such words like that. It was the only praise he gave the movie.You have brought up something that I've never thought of, that Roddenberry's choice to make the two lead characters so out of sorts as such a risky move. Though I agree it's clearly explained why they are out of sorts. I don't recall seeing or reading his thoughts on that after the movie was released.

 

[FanCollector]

124?In a way, TMP is a good pilot for the series that never was. The story serves to get everyone back to where we remember them, not just physically or professionally, but psychologically. And then it sets us up for a new series of adventures. If there had been a new episode a week later or a month later, I'll bet people would have been less concerned with the time Kirk and Spock spend out of character.

 

[Nelson Au]

That old?! A little younger. The first film was a good set-up. And Star Trek 2 surprisingly addresses the issues of the midlife crisis and Kirk accepting the Admiralty. Covering the same ground essentially. And Meyer or the other producers tossed in some great Vulcan philosophy. I wished Meyer kept more of the first film's aesthetic. The 2001-esque nature of the film is an aspect I appreciate more and more. But is at odds with the fundamentals of TV Star Trek.

 

[Ockeghem]

Nelson,Would you believe .. 122?

 

[Nelson Au]

Lee just made me aware that I had Parman's age wrong. He's older. So apologies, how fallible of me. So not 122.

 

[Ockeghem]

Nelson,How about 126?

 

[Nelson Au]

Would you believe a little older!

 

[Ockeghem]

Nelson,

How about 127, 128, 129, or 130?

 

[Nelson Au]

The old stereophonic quadraphonic scatter the answers trick!Parman was 128 when he married Philana. And again apologies to Lee and everyone else for misguiding his answers. That's 5 answers to Lee and 3 to Scott. A close game!

 

[FanCollector]

With apologies to Scott, I think I will borrow his patented number quiz. Which episode is indicated by the following list of numbers:3500,000102262I have one more in reserve if you need more help. Just let me know.

 

[Ockeghem]

Lee,

I'm glad you like the number-themed trivia questions. The first episode that jumps out at me is Return To Tomorrow (because of the half million number). I have another one in mind if this is incorrect.

 

[FanCollector]

Well, that was quick! Return to Tomorrow is correct.

 

[Ockeghem]

Great! I'll work on a new question soon.

 

[Ockeghem]

Okay, let's do an image question for a change. I hope this one is at least challenging. Name the episode of TOS from which this image is taken:

 

[Nelson Au]

That was a fast one guys! I am not good with numbers! With the new CGI remastering, one will have to have a good memory for the original effects for that screen grab Scott.I'm guessing at the point that image is shown, a certain person is declaring he's free! Operation: Anhihilate?

 

[Ockeghem]

Nelson,Great guess, but it's not from Operation: Annihilate.

Lee,Just so you know, when I posted my image above and wrote "I hope this one is at least challenging," I was of course referring to the image relative to prior image-related trivia questions of mine and not to your most recent number-related trivia question. That could have come off as insulting!