• 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!

Balance of Terror Observations

But as they did, they didn't throw the godlike being into the plot, they made them the plot. There is a difference.

Yes. Again, it's misunderstanding the term "deus ex machina" to think it literally refers to using supernatural beings in a story. That's just a metaphor, a reference to the way ancient dramas would often resolve a plot by having the stage machinery simulate the intervention of a god. As a term of literary criticism, it refers to the storytelling cheat of resolving a problem by the sudden intrusion of an arbitrary external element that wasn't previously set up in the narrative, rather than through the actions of the story's characters.

Now, there's certainly merit to the opinion that Star Trek overused godlike beings, or that their use undermined the show's credibility. But that's not deus ex machina. That's the wrong term to use for that discussion. The godlike beings were generally used to create the stories' problems rather than suddenly resolve them.

I'd submit that the arrival of Trelane's parents at the end of "The Squire of Gothos" is deus ex machina to a degree; true, the fact that Trelane was actually a child was hinted at throughout the story, so the revelation that he has parents is not completely out of the blue, but it is a DEM in the sense that Kirk does nothing to bring about the resolution of the plot; rather, these new characters show up and put a stop to it while the hero merely stands there and watches. That's the key. What keeps something from being a DEM is that the protagonists actually do something to resolve the problem. For instance, the Prophets disappearing the Dominion fleet in the wormhole in DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels" isn't really a DEM, because Sisko convinces them to do it, so it's a consequence of his actions. And Q saving the E-D from the Borg at the end of "Q Who" isn't a DEM, because it's the result of Picard making a choice to admit humility and ask for help. The real arc of that episode is not "The crew fights the Borg," it's "Q teaches Picard a lesson about his limitations," and the resolution of that arc is when Picard confesses to needing help. It would've been a DEM, though, if the crew had stumbled upon the Borg on their own and Q had just randomly shown up at the end.

As for the actual question being raised here -- whether the godlike beings undermined the show's credibility -- I'd say yes, but as far as TOS was concerned, it was a somewhat necessary compromise for the sake of budget, much like the "parallel Earths" idea was a deliberately unrealistic notion that was necessary to make the production affordable. It's less expensive to depict aliens if they have the power to make themselves look human. And it's also inexpensive to give them telepathic/telekinetic powers, because that's the kind of thing that can be shown largely through acting and pantomime -- an actor pretends to be mind-controlled or to lose control of their body -- or through very simple special effects like jump cuts (for teleportation/transformation) or wire work. That's why we saw so many TOS episodes about characters with mind powers -- because it was cheap. When it came to TNG, with more money and better effects technology at its disposal, you could say it was more of an indulgence, just falling back into old habits.


The point of Trelane was that they had already established that it was a hard, harsh universe, based on physical laws that could not be broken or ignored... and then here's this *seemingly* magical being. It wasn't a TV gimmick. It wasn't a Lost In Space wacky device. It was an extreme weird novelty, that they then had to explain in SF terms.

No, I think the point of Trelane was that they needed to construct stories around historical props, costumes, and set pieces from the Desilu warehouse in order to save money, so they made up a story about an alien with a fetish for Earth history. The rest was just the excuse for that. It's the same reason they did episodes about gangster aliens and Roman aliens and Nazi aliens, and the same reason the later Trek shows did holodeck stories.
 
I was about to resume arguing, but Christopher basically spoke for me. He nailed what I was trying to get at. :bolian:
 
Yes. Again, it's misunderstanding the term "deus ex machina" to think it literally refers to using supernatural beings in a story. That's just a metaphor, a reference to the way ancient dramas would often resolve a plot by having the stage machinery simulate the intervention of a god. As a term of literary criticism, it refers to the storytelling cheat of resolving a problem by the sudden intrusion of an arbitrary external element that wasn't previously set up in the narrative, rather than through the actions of the story's characters.

Which is actually the point I was trying to make earlier. I guess I didn't express myself well. FWIW, "Deus Ex Machina" literally means "God in the Machine", and the Greeks and Romans used the term themselves.

As for the actual question being raised here -- whether the godlike beings undermined the show's credibility -- I'd say yes, but as far as TOS was concerned, it was a somewhat necessary compromise for the sake of budget, much like the "parallel Earths" idea was a deliberately unrealistic notion that was necessary to make the production affordable. It's less expensive to depict aliens if they have the power to make themselves look human. And it's also inexpensive to give them telepathic/telekinetic powers, because that's the kind of thing that can be shown largely through acting and pantomime -- an actor pretends to be mind-controlled or to lose control of their body -- or through very simple special effects like jump cuts (for teleportation/transformation) or wire work. That's why we saw so many TOS episodes about characters with mind powers -- because it was cheap. When it came to TNG, with more money and better effects technology at its disposal, you could say it was more of an indulgence, just falling back into old habits.

That larger budget on TNG also afforded them the opportunity to leave bodies lying around when people got shot to death with phasers. They were initially accused of being "messy".
 
FWIW, "Deus Ex Machina" literally means "God in the Machine", and the Greeks and Romans used the term themselves.

Yes, but we aren't ancient Greeks or Romans. How the term was used literally 2000 years ago doesn't matter to how we use it today as a metaphor. (I'm sure that, say, people centuries ago would've used the term "horsepower" in reference to actual horses, but it would be unwise to expect a modern speaker to use it that way.) They used it literally because they believed in gods as part of their everyday life and their theater was usually based in mythology, so gods showed up in theater all the time. Modern entertainment has a broader range of subject matters, and the term has broadened in meaning commensurately.


That larger budget on TNG also afforded them the opportunity to leave bodies lying around when people got shot to death with phasers. They were initially accused of being "messy".

That doesn't follow. It's more expensive to do the special effect of a body being disintegrated than that of it just falling down dead. The photo insert section in The Making of Star Trek has a good illustration of just how many optical layers were involved in doing a disintegration effect (albeit from a lightning bolt in "The Apple" rather than a phaser beam) -- the animated lightning bolt, the animated body-glow effect, the dissolve to fade out the stuntman's body, all having to be composited together. But for TNG with the intact "bodies," you just had to have a stuntman feign falling dead and then video-animate a beam and a slight glow on impact. Much simpler and less expensive.
 
One of the things I noticed in TNG is that there would be a glow on the opposite side of where the phaser hit--as if it were bleeding through--like la flashight beam behind your palm. They never did that in TOS. Only early in TNG.
 
That's because phaser animation on TOS cost $100 per foot and they used it as little and as simply as possible. It was comparatively much cheaper on TNG and later shows where it was done using video and later CGI effects as opposed to photochemical opticals.
 
That's because phaser animation on TOS cost $100 per foot and they used it as little and as simply as possible. It was comparatively much cheaper on TNG and later shows where it was done using video and later CGI effects as opposed to photochemical opticals.

Ok, please forgive my ignorance. Is that a foot as defined as a foot of film or a foot as defined by distance of the sfx (e.g. The distance between character and target).
 
. . . FWIW, "Deus Ex Machina" literally means "God in the Machine", and the Greeks and Romans used the term themselves.
To be precise, it literally means "god from (or out of) the machine."

"Shore Leave" and "Errand of Mercy" also have deus ex machina endings, although the latter episode does give us a hint that the Organians may not be the passive and simple folk they seem to be. The doors to the Organian council chamber open by themselves!

EDIT: Didn't see Christopher had already made a note of that! And the other subtle cues that the Organians aren't what they seem. So, no deus ex machina.

Ok, please forgive my ignorance. Is that a foot as defined as a foot of film or a foot as defined by distance of the sfx (e.g. The distance between character and target).
If an optical FX house is charging by the foot, I'm quite sure they mean feet of film.
 
Last edited:
Yes, feet of film. In the days of film film pretty much everything is measured in feet. That's why they call what you shoot "footage". :)
 
They should have gone back for the body of the Romulan Centurian and I'm wondering if they did go back but failed to find it? All they have now is pointed ears as their information but if they had retrieved a whole body that would have been .. everything!
 
This is just about the only episode where the heroes or the villains would have had an excuse for finding a body in space. In the general case, those would be expected to be way too small and unnoticeable to be picked up by the scanners of a starship. But this rare once, the body would be along the supposedly carefully logged course of the hero ship, narrowing down the search volume to something quite possibly manageable.

Why bother with the corpse, though? It's not as if anybody was eager to go public with the Vulcan-Romulan connection. But if such a thing were to be announced, the visuals would be plenty enough for agitating the masses. And conversely, if the visuals didn't suffice as the basis for propaganda, then a corpse would not do that, either - both could be dismissed as forgeries equally easily.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I checked, and it seems I was wrong. The centurion's body is out there somewhere. The bomb was put with the second set of debris, while the centurion was with the first.
 
1) Tomlinson: "Well until then (His marriage) I'm still your boss."

I think I once thought that meant they'd have to be put in different departments when married, but now think it's a sly joke that she'll be his "boss" cause they're married.

Despite all the "controversy" surrounding that line I've interpreted it like that even since I was a little kid. From the actor's expression and body language he's clearly joking.
 
I recently read the story outline for "Balance of Terror" and there are a few interesting details, For instance:

—in the direction of the twin giants Romulus and Remus 638—​

Twin giants either means stars or gas giants, most likely the former. So a binary system was likely the intention. Also, while unclear in the single mention, if the system name is Romulus and Remus 638, that implies other star systems named Romulus and Remus, such as Romulus and Remus 422 or whatever, which could perhaps be are stars in particular region of space, much as systems in the constellation of Rigel being Rigel X and Rigel Y.

On the other hand, the script describes the map as showing:

...a curved space marked "Neutral Zone", and extending off the map beyond that a. a star system of which one of the planets is marked "ROMULUS"...​

So there's no clarification as to what ROM II is on the map seen in the episode, since it's in neither document.

Also, in the episode it's hard to make out what the Romulan commander yells as his ship is hit the final time, but in the outline he's calling to fire "Torpedo!" whereas in the script he starts to say "Weapon—" just as his ship is hit.
 
which could perhaps be are stars in particular region of space, much as systems in the constellation of Rigel being Rigel X and Rigel Y.

There is no "consellation of Rigel." The constellation is named Orion. Rigel is the name of its second-brightest star, Beta Orionis. Naked-eye stars in constellations are named in order of brightness with a Greek letter preceding the Greek possessive form of the constellation's name, or alternately by numbers preceding the possessive (Rigel is also called 19 Orionis). If there are planets around Rigel, they would be called Rigel I, Rigel II, etc. in order outward from the star. (At least by normal science fiction convention. By real-world astronomical convention, they'd be lettered in lower case in the order discovered -- Rigel b, Rigel c, Rigel d, etc., since the star itself is the A component.)

There's no way "Romulus and Remus 638" would be a legitimate form. Proper names like Romulus and Remus and catalog numbers are two different systems. Rigel is the traditional proper name of the star whose Bayer designation is Beta Orionis and that goes by various numbers in various different star catalogs, e.g. HD 34085 in the Henry Draper catalog, HIP 24436 in the HIPPARCOS parallax catalog, etc. The twin stars in a binary system would share a single name and be referred to as the A and B components -- for instance, the two components of Sirius are called Sirius A and Sirius B (or technically Alpha Canis Majoris A and B). The thing is, star names were usually assigned by the ancients before we had good enough telescopes to discern that a single point of light in the sky was actually two or more adjacent stars, so there are no real-world cases of the components of a binary having different proper names. That could happen in the future, but the proper names would be more of an everyday thing distinct from the formal catalog numbers. So it's just as well that they dropped the weird "638" thing.
 
From Earth maybe. What about from other worlds. If say the inhabited planet in Alpha Centauri was based on old Earth civilization moved there before the founding of the Roman Empire, they too might have similar names for things, but see a different constellations and then have a different naming conventions. And for whatever reason, the Vulcans liked that naming convention better than the Earth based system for translations to English.
 
From Earth maybe. What about from other worlds. If say the inhabited planet in Alpha Centauri was based on old Earth civilization moved there before the founding of the Roman Empire, they too might have similar names for things, but see a different constellations and then have a different naming conventions. And for whatever reason, the Vulcans liked that naming convention better than the Earth based system for translations to English.

Nobody on Alpha Centauri or anywhere else is going to be able to resolve a binary with the naked eye unless it's their own primary star. Come on, that's just basic common sense -- if stars are light-years apart, then they're going to be light-years away from any other star, not just ours.

The obvious intent of Paul Schneider's script is that "Romulus and Remus" were names assigned by some future starfaring humans upon discovering the twin planets in question -- perhaps in some first contact that went wrong and led to the war, as hypothesized in Diane Duane's novel The Romulan Way. In which case, it's a good thing they ditched the "638" from the outline. It makes no sense to defend something that was discarded already between the outline and final stage. That's what happens to first drafts -- things get tried out and tossed aside, like chunks of marble carved away to reveal the statue inside. You don't try to glue the chunks back on after you've carved them off.
 
There is no "consellation of Rigel." The constellation is named Orion. Rigel is the name of its second-brightest star, Beta Orionis. Naked-eye stars in constellations are named in order of brightness with a Greek letter preceding the Greek possessive form of the constellation's name, or alternately by numbers preceding the possessive (Rigel is also called 19 Orionis). If there are planets around Rigel, they would be called Rigel I, Rigel II, etc. in order outward from the star. (At least by normal science fiction convention. By real-world astronomical convention, they'd be lettered in lower case in the order discovered -- Rigel b, Rigel c, Rigel d, etc., since the star itself is the A component.)

There's no way "Romulus and Remus 638" would be a legitimate form. Proper names like Romulus and Remus and catalog numbers are two different systems. Rigel is the traditional proper name of the star whose Bayer designation is Beta Orionis and that goes by various numbers in various different star catalogs, e.g. HD 34085 in the Henry Draper catalog, HIP 24436 in the HIPPARCOS parallax catalog, etc. The twin stars in a binary system would share a single name and be referred to as the A and B components -- for instance, the two components of Sirius are called Sirius A and Sirius B (or technically Alpha Canis Majoris A and B). The thing is, star names were usually assigned by the ancients before we had good enough telescopes to discern that a single point of light in the sky was actually two or more adjacent stars, so there are no real-world cases of the components of a binary having different proper names. That could happen in the future, but the proper names would be more of an everyday thing distinct from the formal catalog numbers. So it's just as well that they dropped the weird "638" thing.
You're being (as ever) far too literal about something meant as a simple analogy. I used Rigel simply as an example for items in a region of space being named in a manner like Name #. You're also missing the spirit of the post, which was to share some info on what might suggest what the original intent was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kor
I used Rigel simply as an example for items in a region of space being named in a manner like Name #.

But that's the point -- no "items in a region of space" are named in that manner. There is no such pattern as "Constellation Name #" for star systems, only "Star Name #" for individual planets, and only in informal or science-fictional usage. There is "# Genitive of Constellation Name," there are catalog numbers, but there is no "Name #," let alone "Name and Name #."

You're also missing the spirit of the post, which was to share some info on what might suggest what the original intent was.

The original intent, obviously, was an attempt to sound vaguely astronomical on the part of a writer who knew nothing about the subject. Unfortunately, that's all too common in Trek naming patterns, giving us gibberish like "Delta Vega" and "Omicron Delta" and "planet IV of Star System 892." This time, at least, they dodged a bullet by dropping the gibberish part in the outline phase. Perhaps their scientific consultants pointed out what a nonsense formation it was, much as I did here, and for once they actually listened.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top