There are always people willing to pay a fortune to have the genuine article instead of a near-perfect copy. Look at the people who'll buy some ordinary object that has been owned by a celebrity when in truth that object is indistinguishable from one they could have for much cheaper at a store.
Hey, I never noticed that before....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
There are always people willing to pay a fortune to have the genuine article instead of a near-perfect copy. Look at the people who'll buy some ordinary object that has been owned by a celebrity when in truth that object is indistinguishable from one they could have for much cheaper at a store.
And of course Trek puts a spin on that, too, it being possible to have fifty-nine perfectly genuine Mona Lisas if one insists, all with Leonardo's fingerprints complete with his sweat residue, all with the same provenance right up till the moment when there emerged fifty-eight additional originals.
But DS9 "Meridian" is a fine example of how even holograms could come in degrees, those created through peeping being more desirable than those synthesized out of neutral data even when the end results are identical. And we have our collectors like Kivas Fajo, apparently hoarding stuff more for the story than for the innate value: his possessions are valued for their uniqueness, and that uniqueness seems to stem from it being unlikely that they ever would be mass-produced, rather than from it being impossible. Anybody could replicate a Varon-T or a Data, but only criminals would, and only for the perverse pleasure of having those, since they carry no practical value; the perverse pleasure then carries the lemma that it's even better to illegally obtain the real deal.
Timo Saloniemi
But DS9 "Meridian" is a fine example of how even holograms could come in degrees, those created through peeping being more desirable than those synthesized out of neutral data even when the end results are identical. And we have our collectors like Kivas Fajo, apparently hoarding stuff more for the story than for the innate value: his possessions are valued for their uniqueness, and that uniqueness seems to stem from it being unlikely that they ever would be mass-produced, rather than from it being impossible. Anybody could replicate a Varon-T or a Data, but only criminals would, and only for the perverse pleasure of having those, since they carry no practical value; the perverse pleasure then carries the lemma that it's even better to illegally obtain the real deal.
Timo Saloniemi
Goofy note on "The Most Toys":
The Collector who only collected original objects had an obvious copy of Salvador Dali's painting "The Persistence of Memory." In the episode, it was a large poster sized painting like they sell at college bookstores,
while the original is a tiny little thing 9.5" X13"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
Now, do you suppose the character got rooked by a crooked art dealer, who told him it was the original, or do you figure the people doing the set dressing didn't know or care?
Scott
The Collector who only collected original objects had an obvious copy of Salvador Dali's painting "The Persistence of Memory." In the episode, it was a large poster sized painting like they sell at college bookstores,
while the original is a tiny little thing 9.5" X13"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
Now, do you suppose the character got rooked by a crooked art dealer, who told him it was the original, or do you figure the people doing the set dressing didn't know or care?
Scott
Last edited:
Goofy note on "The Most Toys":
The Collector who only collected original objects had an obvious copy of Salvador Dali's painting "The Persistence of Memory." In the episode, it was a large poster sized painting like they sell at college bookstores,
while the original is a tiny little thing 9.5" X13"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
Now, do you suppose the character got rooked by a crooked art dealer, who told him it was the original, or do you figure the people doing the set dressing didn't know or care?
Scott
What I'd like to know is how a card can still smell of bubble gum after three hundred years!!!! They can do things in the future that just blow your mind!!!!
Last edited:
Possibly the audience doesn't see the actual images which Flint got to see on the screen, but merrely repeats of the live action footage filmed for the episode. There is no proof that everything will look the same in the "real" future as in the 20th century dramatic productions of it. Possibly the 20th century producers saved money by reusing images from one situation in another situation where it didn't belong.
Sure, it's illuminating to see how TOS is like theater, but that doesn't make its elements beyond criticism.
Well, in modern minimalist theatre, you're lucky if you get a cardboard tree, a table, and a chair...
Regarding the viewscreen display weirdness, almost any TV show or movie which used perfect quality viewscreens had "magic tech" showing impossible angles and zooms. The Man from UNCLE, the Irwin Allen shows, James Bond movies, Space:1999 and countless others utilized this creative license. Dream sequences and flashbacks which would show the person having the visions actually seen full on instead of their point of view were simply concessions to the audience to make the point clearer. I get that it's fun to try to come up with "in universe" explanations for certain things. However, trying to rationalize why Spock would dramatically "zoom out" on Kirk and Mendez in the transporter room when the shot was probably not intended to be shown over Spock's viewscreen is like wondering where the background music is coming from and why the characters can't hear it. It's just a cinematic tool used to enhance the drama (although I do chuckle that Spock might dramatically pull the picture back so he could see Mendez's reaction). Or why people don't "hear" Jeannie "blink" in and out behind them, or how nobody hears Steve Austin's bionics. The sounds are a cue for us. The impossible images on the screens are just conventions of the medium, sometimes shortcuts, other times cheats to make a point.
Last edited:
best smell there is
What's funny is that in "The Voyage Home" Gillian makes that very remark (IE how can they see things that are not in a direct line of sight) and for course it's never answered. It's like the writers are telling us: "We know that it's impossible."
Well, I am glad to hear it.... I guess.
Well, I am glad to hear it.... I guess.
It can't all be realistic.
The first draft was called "The Gamesters of Pentathlon". I wonder how they explained the change. Can't have been a budget shorfall.
Why not? A five sided arena means more combatants ergo more stuntpeople, costumes, props, etc.
Or, as Justman wrote some six months before it got renamed....
Last edited:
You're right, but a clarification. In Armen's "The Gamesters of Pentathlon," the arena isn't an arena but a large, chess-type board (it's called a board in the script) with12 alternating black and white squares arranged in a 3x4 grid. The players can only advance one square at a time and only if they can disable the person on the target square.
In the climatic fight, Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Sulu, and Uhura face off against Shana, Taky, Roork, Klong, and Lars. The two teams move alternately. Kirk calls the moves for the Enterprise team and Shana calls the moves for the Pentathlon team.
You're right, of course. I was looking at the production documents and neglected to check how the script described the playfield.
