• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So name a Star Trek moment that you just didn't "get".

I'm not saying you can believe everything on the internet, but the story about the ad-lib is pervasive. And it is my recollection that she told the story to us at a Philadelphia Star Trek convention I attended in 1975 in the larger context of her speech about being inspired to keep her role by MLK.

Oh, it was told in the larger context of the MLK tall tale? *percontation point* Then it must be true.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I'm not saying you can believe everything on the internet, but the story about the ad-lib is pervasive. And it is my recollection that she told the story to us at a Philadelphia Star Trek convention I attended in 1975 in the larger context of her speech about being inspired to keep her role by MLK.

Oh, it was told in the larger context of the MLK tall tale? *percontation point* Then it must be true.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

I think there is more than enough reasonable doubt about the MLK story, given how it has accumulated so many embellishments over the years, so much so, that we may never know what really transpired there.
 
I'm not saying you can believe everything on the internet, but the story about the ad-lib is pervasive. And it is my recollection that she told the story to us at a Philadelphia Star Trek convention I attended in 1975 in the larger context of her speech about being inspired to keep her role by MLK.

Oh, it was told in the larger context of the MLK tall tale? *percontation point* Then it must be true.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

No, truth is in the eye of a book which has the "ad-libbed" line in print when the author couldn't know about any ad-libs.

Obviously, she called Mr. Blish in England to have him change the line. This would have been right after she got off the phone with Dr. King. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, it was told in the larger context of the MLK tall tale? *percontation point* Then it must be true.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

I think there is more than enough reasonable doubt about the MLK story, given how it has accumulated so many embellishments over the years, so much so, that we may never know what really transpired there.

It's kinda like Grandpa's old war stories...
 
Wow, such unhappy cynicism about Nichelle. I never knew this enmity existed until just now. Where does it come from? The doubt about the veracity of her experience with MLK is somewhat shocking because I've never seen her questioned about it once until today, here. Her memory in 1975 should still have been sharp and lying about meeting MLK is as beyond belief as accusations of it.

No, truth is in the eye of a book which has the "ad-libbed" line in print when the author couldn't know about any ad-libs.

Obviously, she called Mr. Blish in England to have him change the line. This would have been right after she got off the phone with Dr. King. :rolleyes:
A benefit of the doubt would ask how Mr. Blish got the line despite the script, or how he got the script as-spoken. Is there an original production script available as a primary source *without* the line preceding the day the line was shot and accepted? Online transcripts with the line included don't count.
 
Wow, such unhappy cynicism about Nichelle. I never knew this enmity existed until just now. Where does it come from? The doubt about the veracity of her experience with MLK is somewhat shocking because I've never seen her questioned about it once until today, here. Her memory in 1975 should still have been sharp and lying about meeting MLK is as beyond belief as accusations of it.

Methinks you have misread the situation. Disbelief of one's story ≠ enmity towards the storyteller.

By the way, there's a whole thread on the MLK story ongoing right now in the TOS forum, and it's been discussed on the board for years.
 
Wanting to know more about why Nichelle's retelling of the MLK thing keeps changing every time she mentions it, isn't the same thing as being unhappily cynical about her or enmity against her.
 
I would be unhappy with and cynical about someone who lies to me, so I do make assumptions about others based upon that (Simon Pegg doesn't count - he lies to the spoiler mill - they deserve it. He's never lied directly to me ;) ).
 
One thing I don't "get" at all is from (Surprise!) Generations and that is the dynamics of the Lexus.

I know the answer to all this is shipshod and lazy writing, but stay with me anyway.

So several things seemed to be established about the Lexus:

1. You are either in it or out of it.

2. You can go anywhere and anytime in it and presumably can jump from place to place and time to time at will. You can even go to places and times that never existed, like when Picard was in the "Christmas Carol" scene that never actually happened.

3. You have to enter it in a certain way if you don't want to die while trying. Picard say this when he says Soran can't just fly a ship into it because the ship will be destroyed and Soran would be killed, which is why he is redirecting the Lexus towards him on Veridian III.

So in point #1 about being in or out. Kirk is in it, Picard gets taken into it, Soran is in it briefly before he is pulled out by the transporter back to reality and then Soran gets back into it on Veridian III.......So why are the rules apparently different for Gunian? She, like Soran, was in it briefly before she was pulled out by the transporter. Yet when Picard enters the Lexus, Guinan is there! WTF! How could she be there when we've seen her on TNG in many episodes that took place after she was sucked into the Lexus in Generations.

Well she says she "not really there" but in "an echo" which sounds like some part of her was left behind when she was transported out. But in that case shouldn't Soran also have "an echo" in there too? Wouldn't his echo be there to warn real Soran about Picard's plan to get Kirk and go back in time a whole 10 minutes to stop him? Couldn't echo Soran tell real Soran to go back 15 minutes and wait for Kirk and Picard and kill them?

Does anyone who is in the Lexus and chooses to leave voluntarily leave behind an echo? Or just people who were only in briefly and then forcefully pulled out? So is there an echo Kirk still there getting to bang that woman he talks about while echo Picard is downstairs eating the delicious eggs that Kirk took the time and trouble to make? So what the hell is it? is it an all or nothing thing or does a part of you stay behind even if you leave regardless of the circumstances, or is there only an echo if you're pulled out forcefully? Of course we're never given a clear answer as these rules seem only clear to Guinan as a plot convenience device to shoehorn her in.

#2- You can go anywhere, anytime, even to places that don't exist. So once Picard makes his decision to jump back 10 minutes to stop Soran (I won't even go into that being the stupidest decision possible when he could have jumped back a few days and punched Soran out in 10-Forward and ended it all there. Or how Picard could go back and stop things like Hitler and so on.....of course Picard says he won't do anything to change history several times in TNG......apparently there's a grace period though of at least 10 minutes where he's cool with it.

Wouldn't Lexus Soran have that same power though and when he learns of Picard's plan he could jump back in time and kill Picard as a child or something so that his plan succeeds? Even if echo Soran doesn't warn real Soran, you'd think real Soran would realize Picard was right there when the ribbon swept through and he was probably in the Lexus as well, so he might want to deal with that in case Picard tires to go back and stop him before returning to his ideal place? I mean Soran planned everything so methodically it seems like he would want to be sure this little loose end was wrapped up.

#3- You have to enter the Lexus very carefully in order not to be killed in the process. So Soran's whole plan is predicated on bringing the Lexus to him on Veridian III so he can enter successfully. Picard even says he can't just fly a ship into it or he'll be killed when the ship explodes before he enters the Lexus.........Huh?

Weren't Soran and Guinan both on a ship that was getting torn apart by the Lexus and there were able to temporarly enter it successfully before the ship was destroyed and, had the transporter not yanked them back, it seems logical to assume they would still be in there.....and apparently a part of Guinan still is, even the same thing doesn't apply to Soran even though he was in the exact same situation as Guinan....Hell they were even the same species so you can't even use some kind of difference in their physical make-up as the difference maker for the "echo"

And what about Kirk? Wasn't he in a part of a starship that was hit AND destroyed by a piece of energy coming off the Lexus? Yet it didn't blow Kirk to bits or have him sucked out into space, it allowed him to enter the Lexus.

So where does Picard come up with this idea that you can't just fly into the Lexus and enter it without being killed first. Everything we saw to the contrary seems to counter that theory. How do we know the people on the freighters Scotty wasn't able to transport off before they exploded were killed and they weren't all successfully sucked up into the Lexus and are all living their wildest dreams and fantasies for eternity?

Come to think of it how the hell does any of this matter when it seems like, In First Contact when the Enterprise is going to return to the present all they have to do is enter some temporal opening program into the computer and the ship suddenly becomes like a flying DeLorean that can jump back and forth throughout time as it pleases. Did they install a flux capacitor on the E?

The Lexus......The dumbest plot device in all of Star Trek and one of the worst in the history of film making. At least film making of a major franchise which is expected to have a certain level of quality to it. And a concept that I will never "get" on so many levels.

BTW I know it was the Nexus. I just hate that name because it either reminds me of shampoo or a special card people who travel across the US-Canadian border often can apply for that allows them to bypass having to wait in line at customs and show their passports to the officers.
 
^ In FC, I always thought that the Enterprise returned to its present the same way it left it: by following the 'time warp' created by the Borg sphere. That time warp may have had some bits of it left by the end of the film.
 
I read your whole post so I know you said "Lexus" on purpose. But "Lexus" is also a car so it makes the whole story kinda strange.
 
I read your whole post so I know you said "Lexus" on purpose. But "Lexus" is also a car so it makes the whole story kinda strange.

I know but I figure the name of a luxury car brand is more suited to a place where you can live out your dreams than a shampoo brand.:)
 
^ In FC, I always thought that the Enterprise returned to its present the same way it left it: by following the 'time warp' created by the Borg sphere. That time warp may have had some bits of it left by the end of the film.

I'm not positive but IIRC at the end of the film Picard gives some order to match the Borg's temporal signature to get back to the present. And he gives the order is an extremely casual way, like he's ordering to show something on screen and he doesn't order the ship or crew to make any special preparations for time travel. Not like it's a big deal that the Enterprise can apparently create its own temporal ports and just cruise back to the present with ease.

I remember thinking near the end of the film "How are they going to get back now?" And thought the ol' slingshot around the sun bit would be used. Nope Picard gave some seemingly common order and bang....that was all it took. Really left me scratching my head. It was like the writers realized the length of the film and knew they didn't have time to make it a big scene, so they just made it a five second clip.
 
^ In FC, I always thought that the Enterprise returned to its present the same way it left it: by following the 'time warp' created by the Borg sphere. That time warp may have had some bits of it left by the end of the film.

I'm not positive but IIRC at the end of the film Picard gives some order to match the Borg's temporal signature to get back to the present. And he gives the order is an extremely casual way, like he's ordering to show something on screen and he doesn't order the ship or crew to make any special preparations for time travel. Not like it's a big deal that the Enterprise can apparently create its own temporal ports and just cruise back to the present with ease.

I remember thinking near the end of the film "How are they going to get back now?" And thought the ol' slingshot around the sun bit would be used. Nope Picard gave some seemingly common order and bang....that was all it took. Really left me scratching my head. It was like the writers realized the length of the film and knew they didn't have time to make it a big scene, so they just made it a five second clip.
It could have been worse. They could have just bypassed the scene and show them directly in the present without any explanations.
 
^ In FC, I always thought that the Enterprise returned to its present the same way it left it: by following the 'time warp' created by the Borg sphere. That time warp may have had some bits of it left by the end of the film.

I'm not positive but IIRC at the end of the film Picard gives some order to match the Borg's temporal signature to get back to the present. And he gives the order is an extremely casual way, like he's ordering to show something on screen and he doesn't order the ship or crew to make any special preparations for time travel. Not like it's a big deal that the Enterprise can apparently create its own temporal ports and just cruise back to the present with ease.

I remember thinking near the end of the film "How are they going to get back now?" And thought the ol' slingshot around the sun bit would be used. Nope Picard gave some seemingly common order and bang....that was all it took. Really left me scratching my head. It was like the writers realized the length of the film and knew they didn't have time to make it a big scene, so they just made it a five second clip.
It could have been worse. They could have just bypassed the scene and show them directly in the present without any explanations.

I'm sure it was seriously considered.
 
I'm not positive but IIRC at the end of the film Picard gives some order to match the Borg's temporal signature to get back to the present. And he gives the order is an extremely casual way, like he's ordering to show something on screen and he doesn't order the ship or crew to make any special preparations for time travel. Not like it's a big deal that the Enterprise can apparently create its own temporal ports and just cruise back to the present with ease.

I remember thinking near the end of the film "How are they going to get back now?" And thought the ol' slingshot around the sun bit would be used. Nope Picard gave some seemingly common order and bang....that was all it took. Really left me scratching my head. It was like the writers realized the length of the film and knew they didn't have time to make it a big scene, so they just made it a five second clip.
It could have been worse. They could have just bypassed the scene and show them directly in the present without any explanations.

I'm sure it was seriously considered.

Hitchcock does that in North By Northwest. He's holding her over a cliff (kinda like Tuvok and the little girl) and then they are both in the train, no explanation as to how they got out of that predicament. To be fair only Hitchcock can get away with something like that.
 
It could have been worse. They could have just bypassed the scene and show them directly in the present without any explanations.

I'm sure it was seriously considered.

Hitchcock does that in North By Northwest. He's holding her over a cliff (kinda like Tuvok and the little girl) and then they are both in the train, no explanation as to how they got out of that predicament. To be fair only Hitchcock can get away with something like that.

Oh yeah I remember that. Cary Grant is saying to the girl hanging off the cliff "Come on" like climb as hard as you can over and over and then suddenly he's saying "Come on" to her on a train like "Come on and give me a kiss".....Well like you said it's Hitchcock.
 
What explanation do you need? He pulled her up, they got married, and then they made love on a train on their honeymoon. :shrug:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-4Nwght0[/yt]
 
What explanation do you need? He pulled her up, they got married, and then they made love on a train on their honeymoon. :shrug:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-4Nwght0[/yt]

She was hanging over a cliff, ha was barely able to hold on to her the bad guy had just stepped on the fingers of his other hand and the others were like half a kilometer away. Yeah, no explanation necessary, alright...:rolleye
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top