• 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!

Retro Sci Fi Urban Legends, Misconceptions, and Assorted Errors

Why did the original Quantum Leap add the whole "only within his (Sam's) lifetime" limitation to Sam's leaping? Was it a budget thing, so they didn't have to spend money on more complicated eras, or purely a storytelling choice?

I assume to make it clear that this WASN'T going to be your usual sort of time-travel series, where the heroes are dropping in on ancient Greece, the Alamo, the Titanic, or whatever.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but QUANTUM LEAP was intended to be a different kinda of show, that didn't involve running into dinosaurs and pirates and cowboys.
 
Last edited:
The way I heard it was that Splinter of the Minds Eye started as the concept for a lower budget sequel to the original Star Wars if it wasn't successful, but once it was a huge hit Lucas realized they could big for the sequel, and released it as a book instead.

No, it was written as a novel while the original movie was still in production, and there was a clause in Alan Dean Foster's contract allowing for it to be adapted to a movie if Lucas wanted to go that way. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Splinter_of_the_Mind's_Eye#Development

So it wasn't a movie treatment that was turned into a book; it was a book written as a potential basis for a low-budget movie sequel. But when SW was a hit, Lucas realized he could make a much bigger sequel.


This isn't an myth or error, but it is something I've never understood, and it doesn't really deserve it's own thread, so I hope it's OK if I ask it here.
Why did the original Quantum Leap add the whole "only within his (Sam's) lifetime" limitation to Sam's leaping? Was it a budget thing, so they didn't have to spend money on more complicated eras, or purely a storytelling choice?
I assume to make it clear that this WASN'T going to bey our usual sort of time-travel series, where the heroes are dropping in on ancient Greece, the Alamo, the Titanic, or whatever.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but QUANTUM LEAP was intended to be a different kinda of show, that didn't involve running into dinosaurs and pirates and cowboys.

Yeah, this was basically it. The idea was to avoid the usual cliches of time travel shows like The Time Tunnel, and to make it a smaller-scale, lower-stakes, more character-oriented drama. Basically the time travel was just an excuse for the kind of pseudo-anthology show that had been popular in TV for decades, the Fugitive sort of thing where the hero ends up in a different place and adopts a different identity every week, so that you get both the flexibility and storytelling range of an anthology show and the budgetary and audience-loyalty advantage of having a continuing lead actor(s).
 
The idea of a Romulan-Klingon alliance was first mentioned in the book The Making of Star Trek, which was the source of many ideas that were widely accepted as fact despite never being stated in TOS. That book was considered an invaluable resource in its day, so its ideas were very influential among fans. Other things TMoST established include the idea that Kirk was the youngest captain in Starfleet, and that he commanded a smaller "destroyer-type" vessel before the Enterprise. It established that the dish on the front of the engineering hull was a navigational deflector. It was the second work to establish that ST took place in the 23rd century (after James Blish's episode adaptations), and it codified "mind-meld" as the standard term for what TOS had referred to by various different names including "mind touch," "mind link," and "mind fusion" (with "meld" being used only in "Elaan of Troyius" and "The Paradise Syndrome," and never in the animated series).
Thank you! I had no idea how much I "knew" was obviously from TMoST.

There was also Splinter of the Mind's Eye, which was (and this may be apocryphal) written as a possible sequel to Star Wars. Whether or not that is true, the novel is full of details that include a romantic relationship between Luke and Leia, a different take on the force ghost concept, and on Darth Vader. It also turns the light sabre into something akin to a Swiss Army knife.
It's also a rather good book on its own terms.
 
TMoST’s bio of Kirk referencing his previous command of a destroyer class vessel is given weight by Dehner’s remark in WNMHGB about Kirk asking for Gary Mitchell when Kirk got his first command. She doesn’t say Kirk asked for Mitchell when he got command of the Enterprise.

It surprises me how many people assume the Enterprise was Kirk's first command. It's not logical to expect Starfleet to give command of one of its most important and powerful capital ships to an untried captain. Okay, both ST:TMP (with Decker) and ST '09 have shown otherwise, but Decker got his command on Kirk's recommendation, and even ST '09 treated it as an exceptional thing (and even then it was so nonsensical that the sequel basically admitted they'd jumped the gun and required Kirk to re-earn his command).

For some reason, it's a recurring pattern in Trek fandom. I hear so many people complain that it didn't make sense for Shinzon to create a clone of Picard years before the Enterprise-D "made" him important, but they're forgetting that Picard commanded the Stargazer for 22 years before then -- that the whole reason he was given command of Starfleet's so-called "flagship" was because he was already a legendary commander.

And even Voyager's later writing staff mistakenly claimed in one episode that Voyager was Janeway's first command, contradicting an explicit earlier reference that she'd met Tuvok a number of years earlier when he critiqued her performance after her first command. Voyager's original writers intended Janeway to be an experienced, accomplished commander. She was the first female Trek lead, facing an uphill battle to win acceptance with the audience, so the last thing the writers would've done was to play into sexist expectations by making her a novice captain.

Granted, though, the shows themselves compounded this by doing so little exploration of the captains' past careers. TOS never elaborated on Kirk's earlier command(s) beyond that single line from Dehner, and the Stargazer has probably been brought up more in Picard than it was on TNG outside of "The Battle."
 
Some fans like to think their hero is some sort of wunderkind who defies all conventions. But initially Roddenberry wanted his show to have a degree of believability, and having military experience that could be reflected in how his characters came to the positions they hold is one way to support that credibility.

In the real world you largely have to go up the established ladders no matter how fast your promotions, be it the military or civilian occupations.

In later episodes we see other starship commanders and they seem to be about ten years older than Kirk, so that lends weight to the TMoST reference that Kirk is the youngest starship captain. This could also be bolstered by those officers Kirk encounters in the bar on Starbase 11 in “Court Martial” who seem to resent Kirk, and perhaps not just for Finney’s death.
 
In the real world you largely have to go up the established ladders no matter how fast your promotions, be it the military or civilian occupations.

What bugs me is the tendency of fans and show writers alike to assume that every Starfleet main character has to end up as a captain or admiral eventually. I mean, canonically, Kirk and McCoy became admirals; Spock, Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura (according to Picard set graphics) became captains; and Chekov was established as an admiral in the Vulcan's Soul novel trilogy among others. That's just not how the military works. The higher the rank, the fewer people hold it, because every single person of one rank is in command of a large number of people at the next lower rank. So only a tiny percentage of people ever make it captain, let alone admiral. It's not some guaranteed endpoint for everyone who serves long enough. Most people will max out at a lower rank and stay there until they retire or muster out. And for most, that should be enough. Command is just one discipline out of many. Just being a department head -- a chief science officer, a CMO, a chief engineer, etc. -- should be a sufficient career pinnacle for most.

Not to mention, why must people assume that every Starfleet officer is Starfleet for life? In reality, many people just use the military as a stepping stone to civilian careers. Starfleet is basically an armed university, so it should be a great foundation for later careers in science, diplomacy, politics, art, music, who knows what else. But only a handful of Trek leads have ever been shown to leave Starfleet for civilian careers -- Archer became Federation president according to biography text, Spock became an ambassador, Picard retired to run his vineyard... and that's all I can think of, aside from alternate-timeline things like Data and Geordi in "All Good Things...". And all three of them achieved command or flag rank before their retirement, so they don't really count as exceptions to the cliche.
 
I assume to make it clear that this WASN'T going to bey our usual sort of time-travel series, where the heroes are dropping in on ancient Greece, the Alamo, the Titanic, or whatever.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but QUANTUM LEAP was intended to be a different kinda of show, that didn't involve running into dinosaurs and pirates and cowboys.

Basically, Quantum Leap wasn't Doctor Who, it was Touched by an Angel.
 
Thank you! I had no idea how much I "knew" was obviously from TMoST.


It's also a rather good book on its own terms.

Maybe I should try and re-read it.

Tried many years ago and just couldn't get into to.

Only thing I remember is the Leia crashing in a Y-wing.
 
What bugs me is the tendency of fans and show writers alike to assume that every Starfleet main character has to end up as a captain or admiral eventually. I mean, canonically, Kirk and McCoy became admirals; Spock, Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura (according to Picard set graphics) became captains; and Chekov was established as an admiral in the Vulcan's Soul novel trilogy among others. That's just not how the military works. The higher the rank, the fewer people hold it, because every single person of one rank is in command of a large number of people at the next lower rank. So only a tiny percentage of people ever make it captain, let alone admiral. It's not some guaranteed endpoint for everyone who serves long enough. Most people will max out at a lower rank and stay there until they retire or muster out. And for most, that should be enough. Command is just one discipline out of many. Just being a department head -- a chief science officer, a CMO, a chief engineer, etc. -- should be a sufficient career pinnacle for most.

Not to mention, why must people assume that every Starfleet officer is Starfleet for life? In reality, many people just use the military as a stepping stone to civilian careers. Starfleet is basically an armed university, so it should be a great foundation for later careers in science, diplomacy, politics, art, music, who knows what else. But only a handful of Trek leads have ever been shown to leave Starfleet for civilian careers -- Archer became Federation president according to biography text, Spock became an ambassador, Picard retired to run his vineyard... and that's all I can think of, aside from alternate-timeline things like Data and Geordi in "All Good Things...". And all three of them achieved command or flag rank before their retirement, so they don't really count as exceptions to the cliche.
A truly unrealistic element of Trek is for crews to stay together for several years and even decades. Thats just not credible. In science fiction you can stretch that to some extent, but even then it becomes messed up.

Never mind what came after TOS for now. Within TOS' continuity it looks like Pike commanded the Enterprise for about ten years or so if we go by what we hear in "The Menagerie." We see he was in command of the Enterprise "thirteen years ago" and Kirk took over from Pike about a couple of years before the events of the episodes seen to that point in Season 1. From what we see the only crewman we know who (with reasonable certainty) remained with Pike, and on the Enterprise, throughout that time unto the present was Spock. We don't know what happened to any of the others we see from "thirteen years ago." We can assume they remained with Pike for some years before some or all of them eventually moved on somewhere else. It certainly looks like none of them (other than Spock) remained when Kirk took over.

So Pike and Spock might beggar credibility by being aboard the Enterprise for so long. But simce this is science fiction and the ship supposedly stays on patrol "out there" for years on end then maybe it's not so crazy for a few or some personnel to remain in one place for a more than usual extended period.

We accept that Kirk and the other familiar characters remain aboard the Enterprise for at least the duration of their 5-year mission. We can assume Janice Rand left at some point because we never see her again although she could also have been assigned to another post aboard where we simply never need to see her. Take your pick.

In TMP we see everyone together aboard the refit Enterprise save for Kirk, Spock and McCoy who have all moved on. Thats credible. It's certainly credible of we accept TMP taking place only a couple of years after the end of the 5-year mission. It becomes less credible if we see TMP taking place about ten years after TOS with maybe a second 5-year mission in there. And that was apparently the original intention for the film to allow them to reflect the againg of the original cast. We're then led to think that the reunited crew will be embarking on yet another set of adventure (pity we didn't get to see any of that).

Now we get to TWOK, fifteen years after TOS, and the same personnel are still tiogether and for several more years to come.

Now you're really stretching credibility.
 
Last edited:
Within TOS' continuity it looks like Pike commanded the Enterprise for about ten years or so if we go by what we hear in "The Menagerie."

A minimum of "eleven years, four months, five days," since that's how long Spock served under Pike.


We don't know what happened to any of the others we see from "thirteen years ago." We can assume they remained with Pike for some years before some or all of them eventually moved on somewhere else. It certainly looks like none of them (other than Spock) remained when Kirk took over.

Although Strange New Worlds has established Cadet Uhura and civilian specialist Chapel as members of Pike's crew, along with Dr. M'Benga. Similarly, in my novel The Captain's Oath, I established that Uhura was on Pike's crew toward the end of his tenure. It made sense that at least a couple of people would've been holdovers.

It becomes less credible if we see TMP taking place about ten years after TOS with maybe a second 5-year mission in there. And that was apparently the original intention for the film to allow them to reflect the againg of the original cast.

What gives you that idea? TMP is explicit that Kirk served "five years out there" and that only two and a half years have elapsed since then (or 2.8 years per the novelization). The idea of a second 5-year mission between TOS and TMP is purely a fan invention, and an implication in several 1980s novels.

If we want to establish original intention, the place to go is the Phase II Writers/Directors Guide from 1977. My copy states explicitly that the series would have depicted Kirk's second 5-year mission on the Enterprise, not the third, and that Kirk has refused promotion to admiral to command the ship after its refit. So the time gap between series was always meant to be shorter than the real-time interval. Even if they were counting from the end of TAS in 1974, it probably wouldn't have taken 3-4 years for a refit.

Interestingly, in looking through the Phase II bible, I find it actually addresses the very question we're discussing, why the crew would stick together for a second tour of duty (minus Spock, who wasn't expected to be a regular anymore). From its opening page:

"In fact, all of our original crew have found themselves to be very nearly legends in their own time. Few starships have ever completed a five-year mission, and none but the U.S.S. Enterprise has returned with its original crew virtually intact. Perhaps the explanation for so many of the crew volunteering for a second five years was their seeking the relative anonymity of space. Or perhaps these men or women cannot find satisfaction in an ordinary life after so many years of the highest adventure experienced by humans."

Note that this is the origin of the claim from the TMP novelization that surviving a 5YM was almost unheard of. We can presume from this that surviving two in a row would be even more unheard of -- further proof that there was only meant to be the one 5YM before TMP.


Now we get to TWOK, fifteen years after TOS, and the same personnel are still tigether and for several more years to come.

Now you're really stretching credibility.

Not really, since the implication in TWOK is that the crew have gone their separate ways and have only reunited for the training cruise as a birthday present to Kirk. A deleted scene established overtly that Sulu had been promoted to captain the Excelsior, though that was cut. After that, they came together to steal the Enterprise, then were outlaws together, and then were put back together on the Enterprise-A after their pardon. I always figured that was pretty much to get them out of the way, since even after their pardon, a lot of crews might not have been comfortable working alongside them.

Then we get a big time jump to ST VI, which also indicates that the crew have come back together for a specific mission after some time apart. A deleted opening sequence would've shown Admiral Kirk recruiting them all one by one.

Still, my understanding is that the original idea behind introducing Saavik and David in TWOK was that the film series would gradually phase out the older cast in favor of new, younger leads, a more literal "Next Generation" than the one we got. Instead, nostalgia prevailed and we got a series of continuity resets rather than real growth and change.
 
Eh, your loss. Continuity is less important than good writing and character work, and SNW has served Uhura and Chapel better than TOS ever did. It's not like TOS's continuity was remotely ironclad to begin with, since they were making it up as they went along.
Hardly. I didn’t miss ENT or DSC. JJ was utter trash and I won’t miss more half-assed retconning from SNW. I can’t even stand the look of it.
 
Note that this is the origin of the claim from the TMP novelization that surviving a 5YM was almost unheard of. We can presume from this that surviving two in a row would be even more unheard of -- further proof that there was only meant to be the one 5YM before TMP.
If that was true, not many people would volunteer for a 5 year since it seemed to be a suicide mission.
 
When I saw Return of the Jedi in the theater as a kid I could swear I remember an X-Wing crashing into the Death Star's deflector shields before the generator get blown up on Endor. I was then baffled when I never saw the scene again in repeat viewings on TV or VHS. Supposedly it was in the novel, but I never read that. Maybe it was on one of the audio records?
 
Still, my understanding is that the original idea behind introducing Saavik and David in TWOK was that the film series would gradually phase out the older cast in favor of new, younger leads, a more literal "Next Generation" than the one we got. Instead, nostalgia prevailed and we got a series of continuity resets rather than real growth and change.

Would it have worked if it was confined to films and not a corresponding show, though? As in, why should we care about these people as much, apart from their family/mentor connections when there's no room for character development over time? Granted, other movies do this all the time; but will Trek fans like them enough to stick with movie story them, as opposed to nuanced, told over time show story them?
 
Would it have worked if it was confined to films and not a corresponding show, though? As in, why should we care about these people as much, apart from their family/mentor connections when there's no room for character development over time? Granted, other movies do this all the time; but will Trek fans like them enough to stick with movie story them, as opposed to nuanced, told over time show story them?

It should be the job of a movie, or any standalone story, to make people care about its characters in the time it has. If it has to rely on pre-existing attachment to its characters as a crutch, then it's just not trying hard enough.

We only needed one movie to care about Luke, Leia, Han, and the rest -- that's why they made a second and a third. We only needed one movie to care about The Incredibles, even though it took 14 years to make a sequel and it wasn't as good as the first. Plenty of movies have introduced new characters and made us want to see them again.

As for transitioning an ongoing series to a new cast of characters, that's less common, but the Jurassic World films are an example.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top