This thing sure blew up into quite the thread.
Tinman
- Thread starter Shannon L. Freng
- Start date
You might want to switch to decaf.
I can tell you exactly why.
The screenplay was based on a 1976 short story "Tin Woodman," written by the same two guys - David Bischoff and Dennis Bailey.
In the story, the alien was a cybernetic/biological construct, a cyborg spacecraft - as it was in the first draft of the script. Someone designated the thing "Tin Woodman" because the character in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was a living being who'd been slowly turned into a tin construction, rather than a robot.
During the revising of the script, the "cyborg" angle was dropped, probably because it was deemed too similar to the Borg. But the nickname for the creature remained. One of the producers, when asked why they were still calling it "Tin Man," simply replied "Because we like the title."
That's the whole story. The title was not a commentary about Data, although it worked really well in that direction as well. IMO.
Does that explain everything?
And you might want to graduate to a more sophisticated level of riposte, other than the dead common practice of so many in these threads, of merely spouting tired platitudes. But as I've heard it much it, each social class has its own venue of expression, which others enter at their own peril.
@Shannon L. Freng , you started this thread by asking a reasonable question, but have consistently responded to reasonable, non-confrontational replies with hostility, condescension, and insults. It's not a good look.
Yeah, this isn't how you establish a posting career here. This is how you incinerate one before it has a chance to grow.
It's more confusing than anything else.
How dare you like what you're working on!?!?
I never implied I thought it was any comment upon Data. I figured as much that it was all just due to some arbitrary bonehead producer's decision which was not (nor cared to be) thought out. Thanks for
Many times, but he ended up with some good stories, let me tell you.
No, but that angle comes up often enough in connection with this question that I thought it worth clarifying.
If you've any other questions about the episode that I can answer, I'll be glad to give it a go.
But do you agree with the premise of my argument over the discontinuity?
Like you're the one to give those lessons. Pshaw.
I absolutely agree. Why not?
Don't make me whip out my Jolene Blalock comments from 2002. I'll do it, yo. DefCon 1.
Ah well, this is probably just one instance where some idiot brass guy threw a monkey wrench into the works, and nothing was done about it. I take it you were familiar with Maurice Hurley.
I see you're not burdened with an over abundance of mutual respect or good manners.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why most people are coming to this thread. Is it because you've asked a well thought out and reasoned question in a polite and courteous fashion, and are currently engaging in a thoughtful and insightful conversation?
Or is it because you've come in here as a hot head, spouting nonsense, and acting like an asshole?
The thread is a train wreck, and people are coming to see the carnage.
Last edited:
This took place during the third year of the series. I've heard a great deal about Hurley, yes. But he was long gone by the time they were working on this episode. Michael Piller was the producer in charge of writing, by that time.
Similar threads
