StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Batman wrote:Um-I can still see yours (whereas Degan's didn't even show up as links from the word go far as I can tell).

Oh, you know what... I think a mode turned them into links. I'm used to just inlining pics in my drawing threads in AMP. Duh. Sorry Mods.

And all they show in the way of debris is a moderate amount of splinters, with apparently no noticeable damage being done to the person operating the console at the time.

There is a pretty large amount of glass debris around Mitchell when he is on the floor.

Yes, the console obviously exploded (sort of.Technically, firecrackers explode too). That's a far cry from the TNG+ exploding consoles which physically hurl people across the bridge.

Yeah and? I didn't say anything about it other than the fact that the very first damage we see in Star Trek (or the first damage in the series that was produced) was exploding consoles.

*sigh* My POINT was the reason people take OBJECTION to the exploding consoles in the first place is that by TNG, they're a a hell of a lot more explosive than they ought to be.

Batman wrote:*sigh* My POINT was the reason people take OBJECTION to the exploding consoles in the first place is that by TNG, they're a a hell of a lot more explosive than they ought to be.

Who is arguing that? I just thought it was funny that one of the biggest pet peeves people have with TNG on is the exploding console, and that it ironically is the very first damage TOS shows in the series.

Havok wrote:

Batman wrote:*sigh* My POINT was the reason people take OBJECTION to the exploding consoles in the first place is that by TNG, they're a a hell of a lot more explosive than they ought to be.

Who is arguing that? I just thought it was funny that one of the biggest pet peeves people have with TNG on is the exploding console, and that it ironically is the very first damage TOS shows in the series.

Nobody is. I was just pointing out WHY the exploding console is one of the biggest pet peeves people have with TNG.

Batman wrote:

Havok wrote:

Batman wrote:*sigh* My POINT was the reason people take OBJECTION to the exploding consoles in the first place is that by TNG, they're a a hell of a lot more explosive than they ought to be.

Who is arguing that? I just thought it was funny that one of the biggest pet peeves people have with TNG on is the exploding console, and that it ironically is the very first damage TOS shows in the series.

Nobody is. I was just pointing out WHY the exploding console is one of the biggest pet peeves people have with TNG.

I would have thought that the fact that I pointed it out in the first place, would have given the clue that I already knew that.

Havok wrote:Backpedal from what? I said the consoles exploded. They did. I said there was debris, there is. Are you denying that? You are the one that brought up "face full of shrapnel" and "shrapnel casualties", not me. So what exactly am I backpedaling from?

Backpedal from "exploding consoles" to only "not very big explosions from aforesaid consoles". That after I pointed out that the visual evidence shows something far less than explosions taking place and the damage was nowhere near adequate enough had an explosion event taken place.

Fine, when was the last time you saw it, because I watched it two nights ago. And if you had seen it countless times, then why didn't you know that there was debris on the floor surrounding Mitchell?

In point of fact, I watched my DVD of the episode ten days ago.

And I never said there was no debris on the deck. But you are hanging your theory on that one piece of evidence while all the other evidence does not support it. In such cases, when the preponderance of evidence contradicts a theory, it's the theory that's wrong and needs to be adjusted.

Patrick Degan wrote:

Havok wrote:Backpedal from what? I said the consoles exploded. They did. I said there was debris, there is. Are you denying that? You are the one that brought up "face full of shrapnel" and "shrapnel casualties", not me. So what exactly am I backpedaling from?

Backpedal from "exploding consoles" to only "not very big explosions from aforesaid consoles". That after I pointed out that the visual evidence shows something far less than explosions taking place and the damage was nowhere near adequate enough had an explosion event taken place.

Oh please, your visual evidence was incomplete. My visual evidence clearly showed explosions from the consoles. And I didn't backpedal from shit...

Havok wrote:I didn't say it was a high fucking explosive charge, but the consoles exploded.

I said they exploded, you said "everyone should have shrapnel damage", I said the above and stayed with exactly what I said originally.

Fine, when was the last time you saw it, because I watched it two nights ago. And if you had seen it countless times, then why didn't you know that there was debris on the floor surrounding Mitchell?

In point of fact, I watched my DVD of the episode ten days ago.

And I never said there was no debris on the deck. But you are hanging your theory on that one piece of evidence while all the other evidence does not support it. In such cases, when the preponderance of evidence contradicts a theory, it's the theory that's wrong and needs to be adjusted.

My theory? My "theory" is that the control panels exploded. They did. Do you not believe your own eyes? There is debris spread over the deck, electrical fires don't spread debris. Just because no body got hit with the debris or "shrapnel" doesn't mean shit other than they didn't get hit with it. There is even the possibility that not every console had pieces that broke free, as I said, they aren't high explosive charges. (that are designed to expel debris) However there is debris there. What is your explanation for that if not explosion?

CBS.com Link to WNMHGB (for those in the USA at least).

Havok wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:

Havok wrote:Backpedal from what? I said the consoles exploded. They did. I said there was debris, there is. Are you denying that? You are the one that brought up "face full of shrapnel" and "shrapnel casualties", not me. So what exactly am I backpedaling from?

Backpedal from "exploding consoles" to only "not very big explosions from aforesaid consoles". That after I pointed out that the visual evidence shows something far less than explosions taking place and the damage was nowhere near adequate enough had an explosion event taken place.

Oh please, your visual evidence was incomplete. My visual evidence clearly showed explosions from the consoles. And I didn't backpedal from shit...

If you say so...

And I never said there was no debris on the deck. But you are hanging your theory on that one piece of evidence while all the other evidence does not support it. In such cases, when the preponderance of evidence contradicts a theory, it's the theory that's wrong and needs to be adjusted.

My theory? My "theory" is that the control panels exploded. They did. Do you not believe your own eyes? There is debris spread over the deck, electrical fires don't spread debris. Just because no body got hit with the debris or "shrapnel" doesn't mean shit other than they didn't get hit with it. There is even the possibility that not every console had pieces that broke free, as I said, they aren't high explosive charges. (that are designed to expel debris) However there is debris there. What is your explanation for that if not explosion?

I do believe my own eyes and my eyes do not see exploding consoles no matter how much you insist that they did.

As for an alternate explanation which does not require the exploding consoles which visually are seen not to explode but burst into electrical sparks and flames, vibrational stresses cracking and breaking overhead lighting panels can account for the glass shards we do see on the deck to the right of the captain's chair where Mitchell is laying.

As for an alternate explanation which does not require the exploding consoles which visually are seen not to explode but burst into electrical sparks and flames, vibrational stresses cracking and breaking overhead lighting panels can account for the glass shards we do see on the deck to the right of the captain's chair where Mitchell is laying.

In that case I'm sure you can show a screenshot of these supposed cracked lighting panels? If not, the reasonable conclusion is that the debris comes from the device which has just been seen fail with with some force.

*sigh* My POINT was the reason people take OBJECTION to the exploding consoles in the first place is that by TNG, they're a a hell of a lot more explosive than they ought to be.

TWoK. That movie started it all. You can give excuses for it - the simulator was extra spectacular for effect, the other hits were with shields down - but there's no way around the fact that TWoK showed the way forward in terms of set pyrotechnics, and sparklies became the norm for showing battle damage.

That said...

Exploding consoles are blown out of proportion. Yes, it's silly that there's sparks everywhere when the ship gets hammered, but those very same sparks seem to be perfectly harmless. Ever pay attention to what actually happens? People on ships tend to pretty much ignore these sparks, or at beats get out of the way of them. Consoles that spew fireworks one second work fine the next (there's D13's example; another one that comes to mind is Insurrection - a corner of Daniels' tactical console burps up a spark, but he's nonplussed and the thing keeps working fine).

Whatever the sparks are, they're not a sign of a catastrophic failure of the instruments, nor do they seem to do permanent damage. the few times we see actual physical explosions - and they're rare - are when ships are battered with their shields down.

Bounty wrote:

As for an alternate explanation which does not require the exploding consoles which visually are seen not to explode but burst into electrical sparks and flames, vibrational stresses cracking and breaking overhead lighting panels can account for the glass shards we do see on the deck to the right of the captain's chair where Mitchell is laying.

In that case I'm sure you can show a screenshot of these supposed cracked lighting panels? If not, the reasonable conclusion is that the debris comes from the device which has just been seen fail with with some force.

So if my proof is not absolute, that means the other theory "must" be the correct one, even though the aforementioned device visbily does not burst with enough force to send debris flying and all the other onscreen evidence contradicts it?

So if my proof is not absolute, that means the other theory "must" be the correct one, even though the aforementioned device visbily does not burst with enough force to send debris flying and all the other onscreen evidence contradicts it?

You don't have "not absolute" proof, you have imaginary proof. We see a device fail with enough force to lift a control panel clear out of it; we see shards near said device; we do not see any light fixtures exploding. I'm sure we can also entertain the notion that a unicorn flew into the ship and shat out bits of Swarovski figurines, but barring proof of that it's not very kosher to accept it as fact, is it not?

But let's say it's the lights - the only light fittings that could have been the source of the shards are the coloured lights installed above the workstations... and these hadn't been added to the bridge at the time of WNMHGB. So where did the shards come from?

Bounty wrote:

So if my proof is not absolute, that means the other theory "must" be the correct one, even though the aforementioned device visbily does not burst with enough force to send debris flying and all the other onscreen evidence contradicts it?

You don't have "not absolute" proof, you have imaginary proof. We see a device fail with enough force to life a control panel clear out of it; we see shards near said device; we do not see any light fixtures exploding. I'm sure we can also entertain the notion that a unicorn flew into the ship and shat out bits of Swarovski figurines, but barring proof of that it's not very kosher to accept it as fact, is it not?

We see no such thing. The panel at the far end of the bridge flapped for maybe a fraction of an inch at most; it did not "lift clear out" of its mounting. Furthermore, we see that it's control buttons are still mounted in it even as the flames are rising. The other console in the foreground gives off a puff of smoke —some sparks, no flying debris, certainly no flames. If my proof is imaginary, Havok's is non-existent since the onscreen visuals contradict his argument.

But let's say it's the lights - the only light fittings that could have been the source of the shards are the coloured lights installed above the workstations... and these hadn't been added to the bridge at the time of WNMHGB. So where did the shards come from?

You forget the overhead above the main space of the bridge.

Patrick Degan wrote: You forget the overhead above the main space of the bridge.

If it was just the overhead that exploded then shouldn't there be some shards on top of him instead of just underneath him? Shouldn't he also have fallen face first into his console instead of being sent to the floor?

General Zod wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote: You forget the overhead above the main space of the bridge.

If it was just the overhead that exploded then shouldn't there be some shards on top of him instead of just underneath him? Shouldn't he also have fallen face first into his console instead of being sent to the floor?

I didn't say there was an explosion. My thought was that vibrational stresses caused the glass to fracture and shatter, then to drop out of its mounting.

The one other possibility I thought of is one I also tended to discount: that one of the bridge monitor screens shattered and dropped all that glass onto the deck. But I'd think something like that would be caused by uneven thermal stress from fire and there were no fires on the starboard side of the bridge during the event.

Patrick Degan wrote: I didn't say there was an explosion. My thought was that vibrational stresses caused the glass to fracture and shatter, then to drop out of its mounting.

The one other possibility I thought of is one I also tended to discount: that one of the bridge monitor screens shattered and dropped all that glass onto the deck. But I'd think something like that would be caused by uneven thermal stress from fire and there were no fires on the starboard side of the bridge during the event.

I wouldn't exactly think shattered glass dropping would be enough to throw a crewman to a floor. Starfleet pretty much uses "plasma conduits" for all their power for some bizarre reason anyway, right? So it'd be safe to assume one was running through the consoles? A massive short-circuit combined with the pressure from one of these conduits or something similar erupting would be consistent from what we know of how they design their systems.

General Zod wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote: I didn't say there was an explosion. My thought was that vibrational stresses caused the glass to fracture and shatter, then to drop out of its mounting.

The one other possibility I thought of is one I also tended to discount: that one of the bridge monitor screens shattered and dropped all that glass onto the deck. But I'd think something like that would be caused by uneven thermal stress from fire and there were no fires on the starboard side of the bridge during the event.

I wouldn't exactly think shattered glass dropping would be enough to throw a crewman to a floor. Starfleet pretty much uses "plasma conduits" for all their power for some bizarre reason anyway, right? So it'd be safe to assume one was running through the consoles? A massive short-circuit combined with the pressure from one of these conduits or something similar erupting would be consistent from what we know of how they design their systems.

Remember that this is not the Starfleet that put plasma conduits behind every system and bulkhead and even hooked up their shipboard toilets to them but the Starfleet that used simple high-voltage power lines on their ships.

However, no sort of onboard event caused Mitchell's fall; both he and Dr. Dehner got zapped by the energies of the Barrier.

Uraniun235 wrote:Inside Star Trek should be required reading for every TOS fan.

"Too cerebral" was the NBC party line - what really concerned them was the "eroticism" of the pilot (and what that could mean for future episodes), Roddenberry's known womanizing (and insertion of his extra-marital girlfriend as a leading role), and Sales' insistence that Spock was going to come off as a demonic monster to the Bible Belt.

What really matters is that The Cage so impressed the NBC execs that they asked and paid for a second series pilot, to "properly showcase the series' potential".

I can see them being concerned about the eroticism of it, I just saw the episode because this thread made me nostalgic, and god I loved it. It is such a strong script.

Incidentally, thanks for those little tidbits from Inside Star Trek. I've read Harlan Ellison's original script and David Gerrold's book, and both provide unique perspectives into how Star Trek was made, in particular how it's two most popular episodes were made.

Drooling Iguana wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Has The Cage been remastered like the other episodes?

Even if it hasn't, the special effects (and overall design in general) in The Cage hold up substantially better than what we got in the series that followed.

As for whether the series would have worked if they'd stuck to the original cast, I don't think it would have. Remember that this was the '60s and the idea that television sci-fi could be anything other than a nonstop cheese-fest was pretty much unheard of. The Cage cast worked well when they had a good script behind them, as they did in that pilot, but Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly had enough raw charisma and chemistry to carry even the sillier episodes that we eventually got when Star Trek was picked up as a series.

However, if they decided to make a series based on that original crew now, when more serious takes on sci-fi have become the norm, I think it could work quite well.

Interesting I read on IMDb.com, the reason Jeffrey Hunter was ditched in favour of William Shatner was apparently over Hunter asking too much money. Damn actors!

I think a Star Trek show based on the Captain Pike Enterprise and crew would be worthwhile. Who knows, depending on the success of the movie something like that could become possible.

You should get Inside Star Trek. There's a lot of material in there and it is beautifully written by Herb Solow (Executive in Charge of Production - he was basically the Desilu exec that oversaw Star Trek, as well as Mission: Impossible, and Mannix) and Bob Justman (one of the producers of the show). You definitely need to read it for Bob Justman's perspective on City on the Edge of Forever, but if you want perspective on the making of Star Trek in general, it is an invaluable book.

The book didn't mention a money issue with Hunter. As they explained it, the original contract with Jeffrey Hunter was for a pilot, and if it were picked up, a television series. There was no provision for the possibility of a second pilot, because such a contingency was utterly unheard of. When they asked if Hunter would be willing to do a second pilot, his wife came in to screen The Cage, and at the end she said that her husband "wasn't interested in this kind of show" and declined the offer.

Uraniun235 wrote:You should get Inside Star Trek. There's a lot of material in there and it is beautifully written by Herb Solow (Executive in Charge of Production - he was basically the Desilu exec that oversaw Star Trek, as well as Mission: Impossible, and Mannix) and Bob Justman (one of the producers of the show). You definitely need to read it for Bob Justman's perspective on City on the Edge of Forever, but if you want perspective on the making of Star Trek in general, it is an invaluable book.

What in particular did Justman think of City?

The book didn't mention a money issue with Hunter. As they explained it, the original contract with Jeffrey Hunter was for a pilot, and if it were picked up, a television series. There was no provision for the possibility of a second pilot, because such a contingency was utterly unheard of. When they asked if Hunter would be willing to do a second pilot, his wife came in to screen The Cage, and at the end she said that her husband "wasn't interested in this kind of show" and declined the offer.

I see. IMDb fails me again! Sounds like Hunter was whipped by his wife.

If I remember right, Justman thought it was a beautifully written script but was convinced that - as written by Harlan Ellison - it couldn't be done within the budget. He'd worked with Ellison before, actually, on The Outer Limits, and I think it took a bit of creative wrangling (with Ellison's cooperation, that time) to get one of Ellison's scripts shootable for that show as well.

The impression I got from Inside Star Trek was that Ellison really dragged his heels on the re-writes, and that the Trek staff (which included Roddenberry, but I'm pretty sure Gene Coon was involved in it, and I think Dorothy Fontana had a crack at it as well) mainly re-wrote him because they needed a shootable script and couldn't wait any longer.

Uraniun235 wrote:The impression I got from Inside Star Trek was that Ellison really dragged his heels on the re-writes, and that the Trek staff (which included Roddenberry, but I'm pretty sure Gene Coon was involved in it, and I think Dorothy Fontana had a crack at it as well) mainly re-wrote him because they needed a shootable script and couldn't wait any longer.

That particular would fit with Harlan's attitude. Having met the man and eaten and talked with him, he does have a distinct "My way.". He can be reasonable but within his parameters.

As for his particular story, it was ultimately DC Fontana that changed it to what you see on screen.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:The impression I got from Inside Star Trek was that Ellison really dragged his heels on the re-writes, and that the Trek staff (which included Roddenberry, but I'm pretty sure Gene Coon was involved in it, and I think Dorothy Fontana had a crack at it as well) mainly re-wrote him because they needed a shootable script and couldn't wait any longer.

That particular would fit with Harlan's attitude. Having met the man and eaten and talked with him, he does have a distinct "My way.". He can be reasonable but within his parameters.

As for his particular story, it was ultimately DC Fontana that changed it to what you see on screen.

DC's wasn't bad, but I think Harlan's ending had poetry and was just... beautiful. That epilogue should have been kept IMO.

Bounty wrote:The episode was remastered, but I don't know if it's been broadcast yet. The schedule was a bit haphazard.

Well, The Cage is on right now. So I guess they decided to air it.

This is perhaps a bit of thread necro, but these clips of the original cut to WNMHGB are rather interesting. Videos of this version of the second pilot were floating around for a while during the 80s and early 90s but I doubt any of those can be found today.

Clip 1

Clip 2

Clip 3

The first segment with Kirk's original log entry as the opening teaser is very evocative, gives you the sense that the Enterprise really is pushing out into the Infinite —an impression achieved with some very effective use of Alexander Courage's incidental music in this cut. There is also very much an Outer Limits feel to the production with it's slightly different titling styles, especially at the beginning of each act in the episode. I'd love to get a whole cut of this version of the second pilot, but I know it probably will never happen.