Oh yes. How many times have I seen that episode as well? Not enough apparently.
I think my point still stands though.
I think my point still stands though.
GodBen graphs? There is a God.![]()
Opinion regarding the appearance of the flying parasites seems to be equally divided between "They look like fake vomit" and "They look like eggs over easy made by a drunken cook."I remember watching this episode as a kid in the 70s. Even on our old black and white Zenith TV the parasites looked like fake vomit. Flying fake vomit.
Is there a significant difference between the two that I'm failing to comprehend?Opinion regarding the appearance of the flying parasites seems to be equally divided between "They look like fake vomit" and "They look like eggs over easy made by a drunken cook."
The average score of 5.321 may seem very low, and perhaps it is. Perhaps I judged the episodes too harshly because I can't let go of the baggage of the hundreds of hours of Trek I watched before viewing TOS.
Posted by J.T.B.
And nostalgia is a powerful thing. But it's always interesting to me to see a fresh take.
I agree that Voyager's average is a bit too high, but that's because that show's first season only had 15 episodes compared to TOS's 28. If I include the first 13 episodes of season 2, Voyager's average plummets down below TOS's. So it's a technical win for Voyager, but only because that show cheated.Voyager season 1 gets 5.866 and Star Trek gets 5.321? I guess you were a little hard on it.
Nah, I wouldn't say that that's an unfair score, I just happen to grade episodes very harshly. The highest average score for any season I reviewed so far is season 4 of Babylon 5, which managed 7.136. I think I went easy on Babylon 5 too, just because I had never seen the show before and didn't want to be too critical of it.The forum voting in Botany Bay's threads gave S1 about 7.5 average, but maybe that's grading too easy.
It's the first 8 digits of pi. Get it? Because it's a pie chart. A pie chart of pi.A pie chart! And it's so colourful. I have no idea what it's for but I'm happy with it just sitting there.![]()
It's the first 8 digits of pi. Get it? Because it's a pie chart. A pie chart of pi.
I don't know whether to slap you or hug you.
Catspaw is a bit of a silly episode to start on, so I can see why they would go with Amok Time as the actual season opener,being far more exciting.
Well, maybe. A June 21, 1967 memo from Stan Robertson (the NBC creative executive assigned to the series) to Gene Coon (the producer by that time, Roddenberry having moved up to being an executive producer) just says:Well, also, they wanted to save "Catspaw" for Halloween weekend.
Our feelings that neither "Metamorphosis" nor "Catspaw" should be scheduled as one of the four or five programs to begin our 1967-68 season. As you recall, after viewing both rough cuts, we felt that while both were acceptable episodes, they were not truly representative of the excitement and the wide audience appeal we feel our series will have this year.
Yeah it's a weird one. There is chemistry between Kirk and Noel, but nothing is made of it. Rand would have been a better fit here - was she written out of this episode for a reason?
I like Chekov, he's possibly my favourite character after McCoy for the reasons you've stated. But this definitely wasn't his strongest outing.I think that Chekov was a worthwhile addition to the recurring cast. I know his role wasn't that complex throughout the show's run, but I liked the humour he added, particularly when he announces that virtually everything is of Russian descent.
My first reaction was to laugh at them because they're very clearly puppets being controlled with string. But I do like that they're truly alien beings unlike all the humanoid aliens we're used to seeing in Star Trek. They're certainly memorable, unlike all the forehead aliens.GodBen, you didn't mention it directly, but what was your impression of our extra galactic intruder's true forms? I've seen a bit of ridicule expressed about their design, but personally I found it a very distinctive, inventive, and truly an out of this galaxy representation. Redolent in a way, of how similar galaxy hoppers, the Kelvans, were described, though not shown (probably pretty easily explained), as being radically different from species we are accustomed to seeing or hearing about in the good old AQ.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.