TOS myths and misconceptions...

[Christopher]

The most annoying misconception on this message board is that "remastered" means "new special FX."

Pretty understandable, don't ya think, since the new effects came out in the package called TOS-R?

It would only be understandable if that were people's first exposure to the word "remastered." It wasn't. Most home-video re-releases of old shows and films have been touted as "digitally remastered" for decades. So people should be well aware that the term has nothing to do with altering the content of a production. (In fact, that's the exact opposite of what it means. Remastering means going back to the original master print and making new copies directly from it, from the purest original form of the work. The new FX sequences in TOS-R are the only parts of it that aren't remastered.)

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Hey guys I was watching my TOS season 1 and 2 Blu Rays and I found a big Myth that you will probably not believe and will cause the forum to shake with terror.

The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430. I repeat The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430.

It seems that the number of crew has been 400 (Tommorow is Yesterday), close to 400 (Friday's Child), 428 (I think Space Seed or The Alternative Factor), 430 (I think The Mark of Gideon), and 500 (A Taste of Armageddon) in different episodes.

In TMP, it's given as 430.

 

[Chrisisall]

Hey guys I was watching my TOS season 1 and 2 Blu Rays and I found a big Myth that you will probably not believe and will cause the forum to shake with terror.

The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430. I repeat The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430.

Repeat it as U like, but reality (such as it is) must settle in sooner or later.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Hey guys I was watching my TOS season 1 and 2 Blu Rays and I found a big Myth that you will probably not believe and will cause the forum to shake with terror.

The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430. I repeat The Enterprise DID NOT have a crew of 430.

Repeat it as U like, but reality (such as it is) must settle in sooner or later.

and how does reality feel about all the episodes I listed where the crew compliment of the Enterprise wasn't 430. In fact a weird one of these is how in The Ultimate Computer it's said that a starship needs a crew of 430 yet the combined crews of the ships in the war game task force is 1600, I believe you'll notice a something interesting about that.

 

[Warped9]

^^ You ever hear of rounding off or using approximate figures when talking? People do it all the time in conversation. And Anan 7 could have been just guessing about the Enterprise's compliment.

And in an excited moment it's easier to think in terms of an approximate number of 1600 starship crewman rather than an exact 1712. And if starships do vary in exact complement then approximation is the only way to get the idea across.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^^ You ever hear of rounding off or using approximate figures when talking? People do it all the time in conversation. And Anan 7 could have been just guessing about the Enterprise's compliment.

How was 428 rounding.

Other than that one good point.

 

[Warped9]

^^ You ever hear of rounding off or using approximate figures when talking? People do it all the time in conversation. And Anan 7 could have been just guessing about the Enterprise's compliment.

How was 428 rounding.

Other than that one good point.

In "Charlie X" Kirk says, "428 to be exact." In most every other references the figure 430 is a close enough approximation. You can also say, "There are are more than 400 men and women aboard..." In "A Taste Of Armageddon" Anan 7 is probably guessing.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^^ You ever hear of rounding off or using approximate figures when talking? People do it all the time in conversation. And Anan 7 could have been just guessing about the Enterprise's compliment.

How was 428 rounding.

Other than that one good point.

In "Charlie X" Kirk says, "428 to be exact." In most every other references the figure 430 is a close enough approximation. You can also say, "There are are more than 400 men and women aboard..." In "A Taste Of Armageddon" Anan 7 is probably guessing.

Okay I conceed this point. Though personally I don't think the writers actually cared either way, they just wanted a big number of crew for whenever the ship was threatened.

 

[Warped9]

And in "The Ultimate Computer" you could round off between 1600 and 1700. If all ships were exactly 428 then the exact figure would be 1712. But if the complements do vary between 400 and 430 then 1600 is a fair enough approximation as a reference in the heat of the moment.

 

[Christopher]

It's also worth keeping in mind that a ship's complement undoubtedly changes over time. There might be various numbers of mission specialists aboard for particular assignments. And of course there would be periodic crew losses, and it might take varying amounts of time to replenish those losses depending on frequency of starbase stopovers and availability of suitable personnel. It's probable that the exact number of personnel aboard the ship was in constant flux.

Not to mention that different ships may have different complements based on their particular mission parameters. A Constitution-class starship on a 5-year tour of exploration may have an optimal complement of around 430, but perhaps the Excalibur was on a shorter-term assignment and needed only 320 people while the Farragut had some complex engineering experiments going on that required a crew of 510, mostly engineers. Or whatever. We know that the Intrepid had a crew of around 400, and that the Enterprise under Pike had just over 200. So there's canonical basis for the idea of variable crew complement.

 

[scotpens]

It seems that the number of crew has been 400 (Tommorow is Yesterday), close to 400 (Friday's Child), 428 (I think Space Seed or The Alternative Factor), 430 (I think The Mark of Gideon), and 500 (A Taste of Armageddon) in different episodes.

In TMP, it's given as 430.

That figure is also given in The Making of Star Trek, if you want to take that book as canon.

 

[Hober Mallow]

It's also worth keeping in mind that a ship's complement undoubtedly changes over time.

Except in TNG, where even though people come and go, are transferred or killed, the ship's complement is always maintained at 1014 (I think that's the number). Obviously 1015 would be way too many, and they couldn't even run the ship with as few as 1013.

It would only be understandable if that were people's first exposure to the word "remastered." It wasn't. Most home-video re-releases of old shows and films have been touted as "digitally remastered" for decades. So people should be well aware that the term has nothing to do with altering the content of a production. (In fact, that's the exact opposite of what it means. Remastering means going back to the original master print and making new copies directly from it, from the purest original form of the work. The new FX sequences in TOS-R are the only parts of it that aren't remastered.)

Just wanted to quote this again for anyone who missed it.

 

[Christopher]

It's also worth keeping in mind that a ship's complement undoubtedly changes over time.

Except in TNG, where even though people come and go, are transferred or killed, the ship's complement is always maintained at 1014 (I think that's the number). Obviously 1015 would be way too many, and they couldn't even run the ship with as few as 1013.

Searching on Chakoteya's TNG transcript page, I find that the exact number 1014 was cited onscreen only in "Remember Me." Every other time, it was "over a thousand" or "more than a thousand."

Meanwhile, on the flip side, we have Voyager's highly variable and inconsistently reported crew complement:

http://www.star-trek-voyager.net/crew_complement.htm

 

[Hober Mallow]

Searching on Chakoteya's TNG transcript page, I find that the exact number 1014 was cited onscreen only in "Remember Me." Every other time, it was "over a thousand" or "more than a thousand."

The 1014 number was also stated in "Rascals" and "Genesis."

 

[Kain]

- The Federation is a moneyless society. No, not in TOS. Later films and TNG referenced this idea.

Specifically, this was first referenced at Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, at the scene in the Italian restaurant.

- Star Trek is a Utopian future. No, not in TOS. This is a TNG concept.

Wasn't that, though, Gene Rodenberry's intention from the beginning? To show us that a future Earth could be Utopian?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Incidentally, "utopia" literally means "no place."

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Wouldn't that be "atopia"?

 

[Warped9]

Wasn't that, though, Gene Rodenberry's intention from the beginning? To show us that a future Earth could be Utopian?

Not Utopian, but better than what we have. And note, too, that in TOS humanity (as represented by the Enterprise crew) always rejected apparent Utopias.

 

[jtkirk]

I'll never understand why Shatner is often accused of performing bad acting in TOS. His acting in TOS was always spectacular.

The way he delivered dialogue/acting has often been scrutinized or made fun of. But they do that with all the great actors...

Bette Davis
John Wayne
Humphrey Bogart
Cary Grant
Marlon Brando

Shatner should be flattered he is in such good company.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^She packed my bags...last-night--PREFLIGHT!

ZERO hour--9 a.m....

And I'm gonna be...Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh...as a--KITE by then....