ALMOST married. The ship went on alert before Kirk had a chance to perform the ceremony. So Angela Martine was bereaved, but not widowed.
Depends on what legal weight the ceremony really carried. Today, it would be exceptional for a ship's captain to hold the legal power to establish marriage. Perhaps this is true even in the 23rd century, and Kirk was just going through ceremonial pomp whereas the actual marriage had already been sealed by a couple of signatures in the Quartermaster's office the previous day?
Of course, the couple may have chosen to wait for the Captain's amen, and the signing would have happened later, had there been a later.
(It's also quite possible that Kirk would hold the powers of a justice of peace, as those would be very handy in his line of frontier work...)
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, the couple may have chosen to wait for the Captain's amen, and the signing would have happened later, had there been a later.
(It's also quite possible that Kirk would hold the powers of a justice of peace, as those would be very handy in his line of frontier work...)
Timo Saloniemi
Reminds me of the joke sign: “MARRIAGES PERFORMED BY THE CAPTAIN OF THIS VESSEL ARE VALID ONLY FOR THE DURATION OF THE VOYAGE.”
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Interestingly enough, if you rewatch the end of Nemesis, the final scene with characters in it (Picard and Data) structurally echoes this scene, right down to the "walking sequence".
Mytran said:
It isn't common, and it's a bit awkward, but I have seen and heard distance travelled used as a measure of time on other occasions.
A
Amaris
Guest
Holy Schnikes, it's alive! 
I just saw this and thought "when did I make a post about this?". 
Still, though, Balance of Terror is a terrific episode, it contains many of my favorite elements of TOS, and it sets the stage for some good stories involving the Romulans, who are one of my favorite Trek races.
I just saw this and thought "when did I make a post about this?". Still, though, Balance of Terror is a terrific episode, it contains many of my favorite elements of TOS, and it sets the stage for some good stories involving the Romulans, who are one of my favorite Trek races.
Furthering the destroyer vs submarine analogy, diesel submarines run off of battery power when submerged. You need an oxygen source to run an internal combustion enginine and some way to vent waste gases. This places limits on a diesel submarine's endurance and on its speed. They're much faster running near he surface where they can turn on their engines.
Nuclear submarines changed this, but since Balance of Terror is based on WWII submarine combat, the BoPs use of "simple impusle" holds true to he metaphor.
Nuclear submarines changed this, but since Balance of Terror is based on WWII submarine combat, the BoPs use of "simple impusle" holds true to he metaphor.
"How far is the next water?"
"About 2 days' walk." Which could also be said, "about 2 days."
Cmdr Straker
Ensign
BoT is one of my favorite episodes of TOS. Really, the only thing that bugged me about it was the scene when Spock asks Styles if he needs any help and Styles responds with "this time we'll handle things without your help, Vulcan." Or something to that effect. And Spock simply nods and walks away. Now I know Vulcans can be passive, but that's just a little too passive. In my line of work, if I had been in Spock's shoes, I would have called Lt. Styles to the side and had a prayer meeting with him about chain of command and respecting superior officers. And if it happened again, Styles would have gotten a reprimand. I had a big problem with that particular scene mostly due to Spock's reaction. Simply walking away from a comment like that is not becoming of an officer of the military, or even a quasi-military organization, in my experience.
^ Time and place. If Styles had been remiss in his phaser crew duties, an immediate reprimand would have been appropriate. But the middle of a military engagement is not the time or place to distract a crewman who is performing vital tasks with a lecture on military protocol.
Omega_Glory
Commodore
KIRK: "You forget, Your Glory, we haven't started your lesson in courtesy."
ELAAN: "You can teach me nothing, Captain. You've forgotten, I'm the princess that made the Kessel Run in
less that twelve persecs."
But then, how do we know th Kessel Run does not require some thrifty navigation that would reduce the distance traveled and therefore the time. Could be a hellacious piece of space where natural phenomenon makes course plotting diffucult and they race to see who can make the trip in the least amount of distance.
The continuity errors came much later, decades after TOS had ceased production. And hence why I'm inclined to discount the works that got things wrong after what TOS had established.
That's all and well for you, but there are those of us who enjoy the Trek that came after, some more than TOS (Yes it happens, deal with it) and try to justify the past inconsistencies. And TOS was hardly consistent with itself, so it's pretty much the worst offender unless you want to disregard portions of TOS as well (no, it's not the perfect Trek series either, deal with it).
^ Unfortunately, those who do so tend to discount the subtext and performance of TOS and abide only by the printed --er, spoken-- word.
Well, I certainly don't. But I admit that TOS, like all Treks (and maybe moreso) has errors and inconsistencies with itself.
Doesn't mean I'm some TNG+ only extremist who despises all of TOS and all those who enjoy it, just means I'm different from those who dislike TNG+ for the simple fact that they exist.
Doesn't mean I'm some TNG+ only extremist who despises all of TOS and all those who enjoy it, just means I'm different from those who dislike TNG+ for the simple fact that they exist.
I think "Balance of Terror" is one hell of an example to pick for arguing that TOS continuity was ruined by half-assed spinoffs.
This episode totally whores itself out to the "Enemy Below" concept, kicking aside all those aspects of Star Trek that might come in the way of that story. Inevitably, this sets "Balance of Terror" apart from nearly all other TOS already. We get "antisubmarine" weapons we never saw before and never see again, we get fictional limitations of the hero ship that never reappear, we get a Romulan setup that is significantly different in all the reappearances of that adversary species (which is quite an achievement considering how few such reappearances there were). We see a straightforward shoot'em plot that runs contrary to nearly all other TOS storytelling.
It would be difficult to find a better example of TOS being fundamentally unconcerned with continuity. "Balance of Terror" is one of those justly forgotten pieces that nobody seriously tried to fit into the TOS equation again - until the spinoffs came along. It was those that first made an effort of sorting out what the RNZ really is, whether the Romulans are honorless backstabbers or snotty but noble adversaries, and how it might be halfway possible to have the sort of faceless war that "Balance of Terror" casually threw to the table and then forgot.
You know those regularly appearing polls here where we can vote which piece of Trek we'd retroactively banish from existence if we could? I'd ditch "Balance of Terror". None of the good character work there justifies the unimaginative absurdities of the concept, the departure from interesting scifi thematique in favor of straightforward violence, and the pits and moats dug for all further Trek storytelling. It's a great standalone story, but it's hardly fitting in the arc that is TOS, or the grander arc that is Star Trek.
Timo Saloniemi
This episode totally whores itself out to the "Enemy Below" concept, kicking aside all those aspects of Star Trek that might come in the way of that story. Inevitably, this sets "Balance of Terror" apart from nearly all other TOS already. We get "antisubmarine" weapons we never saw before and never see again, we get fictional limitations of the hero ship that never reappear, we get a Romulan setup that is significantly different in all the reappearances of that adversary species (which is quite an achievement considering how few such reappearances there were). We see a straightforward shoot'em plot that runs contrary to nearly all other TOS storytelling.
It would be difficult to find a better example of TOS being fundamentally unconcerned with continuity. "Balance of Terror" is one of those justly forgotten pieces that nobody seriously tried to fit into the TOS equation again - until the spinoffs came along. It was those that first made an effort of sorting out what the RNZ really is, whether the Romulans are honorless backstabbers or snotty but noble adversaries, and how it might be halfway possible to have the sort of faceless war that "Balance of Terror" casually threw to the table and then forgot.
You know those regularly appearing polls here where we can vote which piece of Trek we'd retroactively banish from existence if we could? I'd ditch "Balance of Terror". None of the good character work there justifies the unimaginative absurdities of the concept, the departure from interesting scifi thematique in favor of straightforward violence, and the pits and moats dug for all further Trek storytelling. It's a great standalone story, but it's hardly fitting in the arc that is TOS, or the grander arc that is Star Trek.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
