Stupid reviews, incorrect info, dumb rumors over the years...

[Tactical Drone]

This is kinda based on another poster's response to my "what's wrong with this picture" over in the Voyager forum. Roger Ebert's info in his review was so inaccurate I decided to start a thread on this subject. I'm going to copy and paste his response and then my response to it to begin. Just post the dumb inaccurate rumors and info people have started over the years...

This reminds me a bit of Roger Ebert's review of Generations, where he stated that it was young Picard captaining the Enterprise B.

OMG, you're right

"The movie opens during a maiden run for the Enterprise B; plans call for it to take a little dash around the solar system with some reporters on board. But then a call for help is received, and there's polite jockeying for position between the newly appointed Capt. Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the just-retired Capt. Kirk (William Shatner). Kirk is obviously better-equipped to handle the crisis, but alas the ship itself is unequipped, unmanned and unready for an emergency."

WTF Ebert? Did you watch the f'n movie?? "Captain Picard of the Enterprise-B" didn't even have a British accent, or even remotely resemble Picard!!! Also I guess you didn't see the 78 Years Later part which would make "Picard" well over 100 years old at the 24th Century end (Assuming Harriman was at least 35). Also if they had met previously, wouldn't they have stated this when they act like it was the first time they met later on?? You don't have to be a big Star Trek fan to know that Captain John Harriman was not a "newly appointed Captain Picard," dumbass....

 

[Saratoga NX-3842]

I remember reading somehwhere many years ago that Morn would pilot his ship against the dominion and die in a suicide collision in "A Call to Arms" to buy the crew time to finish the minefield and evacuate the station.

 

[Forbin]

Pretty much any article on Trek you read in TV Guide was woefully misinformed. I can't quote anything specific from memory, but I remember rolling my eyes in disgust every time I'd read one.

And any time a writer or reviewer would refer to Trek as "intergalactic" adventure, I'd scream out loud. Get a frickin' dictionary, folks.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I was around for the omfg, the Dominion is going to WIN! rumors. If only...

And that Dax was going to come back in a male host in S7.

Series 5 rumors:

About six months out, we started hearing about some focus group where they trotted out three ideas: Birth of the Federation (the clear and undisputed winner); Navy SEALs in space (second place); and Starfleet Academy (definitely not popular). We ended up getting something along the lines of BotF, generally speaking. Then when the ratings were sputtering, they introduced the Macos (Navy SEALs). Hmm.

The lead character was going to be called Jackson Archer. Not sure why they made the change - name too unique, and real Jackson Archers would sue?

 

[Ethros]

I don't know where this comes from, but everytime the Voyager episode "Tuvix" airs on Sky, its always listed on the Sky Guide as being called "Biogenesis" for some reason

 

[Michael]

I don't know where this comes from, but everytime the Voyager episode "Tuvix" airs on Sky, its always listed on the Sky Guide as being called "Biogenesis" for some reason

According to Memory Alpha:

"Symbiogenesis" was also the draft title for the episode "Tuvix". Some television listings still use this title.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, Roger Ebert is one of the few mainstream reviewers who actually cares about science fiction and understood "Star Trek" in particular - occasional inaccuracies notwithstanding.

He also nailed the "franchise fatigue" of Trek when he finally declared in his review of "Nemesis:"

I'm sitting there...and I'm smiling like a good sport and trying to get with the dialogue about the isotronic Ruritronic signature from planet Kolarus III, or whatever the hell they were saying, maybe it was "positronic," and gradually it occurs to me that "Star Trek" is over for me. I've been looking at these stories for half a lifetime, and, let's face it, they're out of gas...

"...There might have been a time when the command deck of Starship Enterprise looked exciting and futuristic, but these days it looks like a communications center for security guards. Starships rocket at light speeds halfway across the universe, but when they get into battles the effect is roughly the same as on board a World War II bomber. Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus....

"...I've also had it with the force shield that protects the Enterprise. The power on this thing is always going down. In movie after movie after movie I have to sit through sequences during which the captain is tersely informed that the front shield is down to 60 percent, or the back shield is down to 10 percent, or the side shield is leaking energy, and the captain tersely orders that power be shifted from the back to the sides or all put in the front, or whatever, and I'm thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power for decades now, and here it is the Second Generation of Star Trek, and they still haven't fixed them. Maybe they should get new batteries."

Generally, "Star Trek" has gotten better than it deserves from Roger Ebert.

Oh - and the mistake about Picard notwithstanding, Ebert's review of "Generations" was dead on target:

"Star Trek" seems to cross the props of science fiction with the ideas of Westerns. Watching the fate of millions being settled by an old-fashioned fistfight on a rickety steel bridge (intercut with closeups of the bolts popping loose and the structure sagging ominously), I was almost amused by the shabby storytelling. Why doesn't more movie science fiction have the originality and imagination of its print origins? In "Stargate," the alien god Ra was able to travel the universe, yet still needed slaves to build his pyramids. In "Star Trek: Generations," the starship can go boldly where no one has gone before, but the screenwriters can only do vice versa.

 

[Philo]

"...There might have been a time when the command deck of Starship Enterprise looked exciting and futuristic, but these days it looks like a communications center for security guards.

Yeah, he nailed it.

 

[erastus25]

The first several times Looking for Par'Mach aired the local newspaper's TV listing (The Oregonian, fyi) always screwed up the description of who was pining over Grilka. It through me off the first couple times the episode repeated. "Wait...am I remembering this completely incorrectly?"

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Is anyone old enough to remember the rumours that were circulating about Star Trek VI back in the day, around 1990 or so? It was essentially what JJ Abrams is doing now, a prequel dealing with the early days of TOS, with a new cast playing the beloved characters. Never thought they'd actually go through with it 18 years later.

 

[Rex Racer]

LOL, I'm glad my post spawned a brand new thread! Yeah, I remember reading Ebert's review before seeing the movie on opening day. Luckily I was well-informed enough to know that Ebert was being a bit of an idiot, but I imagine lots of people, after reading his review, just assumed that was young Picard. Seems like movie critics should be aware of that sort of thing, and it makes me question how much attention he was actually paying to a movie that he's being paid to make an informed opinion on. But, as Starship Polaris noted above, the rest of the review was right on target.

 

[RobertScorpio]

This is kinda based on another poster's response to my "what's wrong with this picture" over in the Voyager forum. Roger Ebert's info in his review was so inaccurate I decided to start a thread on this subject. I'm going to copy and paste his response and then my response to it to begin. Just post the dumb inaccurate rumors and info people have started over the years...

This reminds me a bit of Roger Ebert's review of Generations, where he stated that it was young Picard captaining the Enterprise B.

OMG, you're right

"The movie opens during a maiden run for the Enterprise B; plans call for it to take a little dash around the solar system with some reporters on board. But then a call for help is received, and there's polite jockeying for position between the newly appointed Capt. Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the just-retired Capt. Kirk (William Shatner). Kirk is obviously better-equipped to handle the crisis, but alas the ship itself is unequipped, unmanned and unready for an emergency."

WTF Ebert? Did you watch the f'n movie?? "Captain Picard of the Enterprise-B" didn't even have a British accent, or even remotely resemble Picard!!! Also I guess you didn't see the 78 Years Later part which would make "Picard" well over 100 years old at the 24th Century end (Assuming Harriman was at least 35). Also if they had met previously, wouldn't they have stated this when they act like it was the first time they met later on?? You don't have to be a big Star Trek fan to know that Captain John Harriman was not a "newly appointed Captain Picard," dumbass....

I don't see the issue here...that is WHAT happened in the movie. The only problem is listing STEWART as the captain of B...Ebert doesn't print his reviews. Obviously who ever edited this review messed it up...

I like Ebert. No doubt the most important reviewer of his time...no one comes close. Unless your George Takie and you liked to read Rex Reed's reviews..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Rex Racer]

^^ I think this issue is that, if a reader takes the reviewer's word that the incompetent fellow at the beginning of the movie is young Picard, it makes Picard look like a bumbling fool compared to Kirk, which is a problem because this is essentially a TNG movie with Picard as the main character. Obviously, older Picard is competent, but an uninformed viewer might think young Picard was an absolute idiot, with no explanation of how he went from that to the brilliant captain of the D. And I sincerely doubt that the error wasn't Ebert's, as much as you or I might normally like him.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...Ebert doesn't print his reviews. Obviously who ever edited this review messed it up...

That makes no sense at all.

Ebert writes his reviews, and this is a mistake in the writing - it's not some bit of credit info inserted into the review after the fact by someone else.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Is anyone old enough to remember the rumours that were circulating about Star Trek VI back in the day... with a new cast playing the beloved characters.

That was no rumour. That was Harve Bennett's proposal for a ST VI.

My ST club once reported a rumour for ST IV, reinforcing the (real) circulating stories that time travel would be involved - in which were assured by a supposed security guard at Paramount - that he had seen a new version of the Guardian of Forever (of TOS) under construction at the studio.

There was also a very strong rumour that John Carradine had been cast in a ST movie - ST V?

 

[erastus25]

This is kinda based on another poster's response to my "what's wrong with this picture" over in the Voyager forum. Roger Ebert's info in his review was so inaccurate I decided to start a thread on this subject. I'm going to copy and paste his response and then my response to it to begin. Just post the dumb inaccurate rumors and info people have started over the years...

This reminds me a bit of Roger Ebert's review of Generations, where he stated that it was young Picard captaining the Enterprise B.

OMG, you're right

"The movie opens during a maiden run for the Enterprise B; plans call for it to take a little dash around the solar system with some reporters on board. But then a call for help is received, and there's polite jockeying for position between the newly appointed Capt. Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the just-retired Capt. Kirk (William Shatner). Kirk is obviously better-equipped to handle the crisis, but alas the ship itself is unequipped, unmanned and unready for an emergency."

WTF Ebert? Did you watch the f'n movie?? "Captain Picard of the Enterprise-B" didn't even have a British accent, or even remotely resemble Picard!!! Also I guess you didn't see the 78 Years Later part which would make "Picard" well over 100 years old at the 24th Century end (Assuming Harriman was at least 35). Also if they had met previously, wouldn't they have stated this when they act like it was the first time they met later on?? You don't have to be a big Star Trek fan to know that Captain John Harriman was not a "newly appointed Captain Picard," dumbass....

I don't see the issue here...that is WHAT happened in the movie. The only problem is listing STEWART as the captain of B...Ebert doesn't print his reviews. Obviously who ever edited this review messed it up...

I like Ebert. No doubt the most important reviewer of his time...no one comes close. Unless your George Takie and you liked to read Rex Reed's reviews..

Rob
Scorpio

I happen to agree with you. One typo in an otherwise accurate review is not a huge deal. Anyone paying attention to the movie would be able to figure out that Picard and the E-B captain are not the same person. Even if they don't figure it out in the opening montage they would certainly realize it when Picard makes it clear he's never met Kirk before.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I think critics spend too much time taking notes and writing their columns in their heads while they watch what they are reviewing. Many times I've listened to a review, gone to see a movie, and then wondered did the critic even watch the movie I'm watching. I think they should have to view twice. Once through with no note taking or mental writing, and then a second time to form a review.

 

[Phillip Culley]

I remember between Season 6 and 7 of DS9, SFX (a sci-fi magazine in the UK) had a free little DS9 episode guide guide book included with the magazine, and at the end there was a preview for the first few episodes in Season 7. It listed everything from 'Image in the Sand' through to Chrysalis; however it also included an extra episode 'Disfunctional' (or something like that), with the episode description saying 'Unhappy with having Dax's memories forced on her, Ezri tries to have the symbiont removed'.

Was this an episode which progressed further into the writing process than most abandoned scripts and subsequently dropped for some reason? It seems odd that they got everything else spot on with the forthcoming episodes except for this one...

 

[diankra]

...Ebert doesn't print his reviews. Obviously who ever edited this review messed it up...

That makes no sense at all.

Ebert writes his reviews, and this is a mistake in the writing - it's not some bit of credit info inserted into the review after the fact by someone else.

You've never worked in newspapers, have you? That's exactly the sort of stuff a sub-editor might add in to pad an under-running piece or balance up columns - or just because they think a bit more explanation is necessary: Ebert's original copy could well have read "between the ship's newly appointed captain and the just-retired Capt. Kirk (William Shatner)", which the sub changed in the knowledge that the Stewart was playing the 'new captain'.

In the same vein, years back, I had to send a sternish e-mail around the office at a fairly prominent news agency after someone padded out a Babylon 5 preview with the words 'Star Trek spin-off' and it almost made it into one of the UK's national newspapers.

 

[diankra]

I remember between Season 6 and 7 of DS9, SFX (a sci-fi magazine in the UK) had a free little DS9 episode guide guide book included with the magazine, and at the end there was a preview for the first few episodes in Season 7. It listed everything from 'Image in the Sand' through to Chrysalis; however it also included an extra episode 'Disfunctional' (or something like that), with the episode description saying 'Unhappy with having Dax's memories forced on her, Ezri tries to have the symbiont removed'.

Was this an episode which progressed further into the writing process than most abandoned scripts and subsequently dropped for some reason? It seems odd that they got everything else spot on with the forthcoming episodes except for this one...

I was working on that mag at the time, though I didn't do the DS9 guide, and as far as I recall that a solid rumour at the time, though only a rumour. 10 years on I can't recall how definite the source was, but from the track record with the other episodes I'd think it was a script that got abandoned.