Yes that is the character Majel played. Yes and Bill Mumy does a fine job with the characters he played too, esp as a Membari. I would say there is obviously no hard feelings between the Paramount and JMS if they can share actors that way. Of course, I don’t think Majel had a contract that kept her from doing other shows either.
I understand that there may be some controversy over the canon.
The latest rumor is that there are supposed to be Romulans in it. According to the original series, the first Romulan outbreak was 100 years ago. They popped up again in “Balance of Terror”, and it was strongly implied that they learned their lesson. In Next Generation, it was also stated that they had laid low ever since then. So…I dunno!
Perhaps the most compelling extras in the box set of Star Trek: The Original Series: Season Three are the two versions of the pilot episode, “The Cage.” As any fan of the series knows, the original pilot “The Cage” was incorporated into the two-part Season One episode, “The Menagerie” in a creative effort to save money for the increasingly costly show. In disk seven, fans have the unique opportunity to view “The Cage: The Restored Version” and “The Cage: The Original Version.”
After reviewing these two versions back-to-back, I came to the conclusion that I was not enough of a Trekkie to really distinguish a substantial difference between them, except that parts of “The Cage: The Original Version” are in black and white and all of “The Cage: The Restored Version” is in color. However, “The Cage: The Original Version” has the welcome addition of a brief introduction from 1986, “The Unseen Pilot,” with Gene Roddenberry. As Roddenberry explains, the portion of “The Cage: The Original Version” that is in black and white is all that remains of the original footage that was prepared for the pilot episode. In addition to expounding on some technical details surrounding the pilot, Roddenberry portrays himself as a bit of a rebel in the world of TV programming in his efforts to mask Star Trek’s social critique behind a traditional western action/adventure piece set in space. None of this is revelatory to fans of the show or anyone who has seen more than two episodes. Neither is the history of the pilot episode, which was rejected for being too cerebral and strange. Rebel or no, Roddenberry heeded NBC’s warning to follow a more traditional blueprint for his second try at the series which became the Star Trek phenomenon.
i don’t believe i’ve ever seen one full episode of B5, and DS9 i did not enjoy. TNG is one of the best of the Star Trek series… which is why movies were made with that cast and crew, and not with the crew of Voyager, or DS9… and will never be made of the crew in the new Enterprise… Not having seen B5 i don’t feel i can really comment on it’s sci-fi. Star Trek however i have seen lots from the original series, and almost all of TNG, and can say that the time they live in would have to be a pretty awesome place to live, and i hope our own future is half as interesting.
DS9 vs TNG
Again we don’t agree. I don’t think TNG is aging well at all. And I think DS9s more complex story writing is holding up quite well. And for whatever reason, it seems to me that the fans of TREK prefer TNG over DS9. Poll after poll shows this to be true.
TNG is more vanilla, thus more appealing to the masses. But ratings success can not be the final say. Because, as I have mentioned elswhere, Baywatch got higher ratings than TNG. So does that make Baywatch the better show? I hope not.
And it must also be pointed out that TNG came around with very little other choices to watch in terms of first run sydication and network scif. DS9 had to deal with SEAQUEST..BABYLON 5..Stargate.., not to mention TNG, and far more sydicated competition.
TNG, to me, never had really deep character growth. It has some, but not as much as DS9. DS9 is great because everyone, from Sisko to Nog, grew in ways no one could have predict. When you can’t predict where a show is going, I think it mirrors reality.
TNG may garner all the numbers and get all the hoopla. But for me? DS9 was a labor of love for the fans of TREK who were ready for more than just retreaded, but improved TOS.
TNG has continued to gain new fans ans stay on the air every since it first started in 1987 DS9 OTOH was beiing cut off the air before their final seasons in some markets during their original run and it’s future on Spike is shakey as well.
DS9’s storylines and characters aren’t attracting people the way TNG has continued to do over the years. I’m sorry but DS9 was that much of a standout show it would’ve been that way when it originally aired but they trouble beating the other shows in the ratings and creatively as well.
I don’t see the “vanilla” complaint myself especially seeing as how the attempts to surpass TNG with the other shows seems to have fallen flat over the years. But then I nver did think that DS9 was all that great and Voyager and Enterprise is all that bad.
Enterprise could have been a great show but it wasn’t executed very well. DS9 had some great actors and great episodes but I don’t really consider it Trek. It was the black sheep of the family, spent too much time de-constructing Roddenberry, it had too much religion, too much soap and frankly I think Babylon-5 did the story telling better.
I think whether someone prefers DS9 over TNG or vice versa says more about their personalities then it does about the shows. DS9 was a very different Star Trek. I have seen a reviewer who says it wasn’t even Star Trek. If I were to go that far I would even say that is why I like it so much. The self righteous goody two shoes attitude of TNG made me want to puke sometimes. I wanted to shoot Picard in the head at the end of The Pegasus episode. But sometimes he was really cool as in Starship Mine but I suppose that is an inevitable result of having a lot of different writers. But I am a sci-fi fan not a Star Trek fan and I got into sci-fi before TOS came on the air. Plenty of the original Outer Limits episodes were better than Star Trek but they had that darker aspect of reality that shows up in DS9 also.
On actors that cross-over between B5 and Trek I’d say it’s no biggie because most actors who do one SciFi series will then go on to do another ... it’s like gaining access to a club, once you’re in and the fans/producers like you you’re in. As a result you get to see many of the same actors with regularity in many SF/F shows ... sounds like it could be boring but in actual fact we fans tend to welcome them back with open arms.
Trek’s psychology is juvenile, too. I find it hard to believe that the technological future society of Star Trek could be so into kooky New Age pop-psychology, that it would have a psychic stationed on every spaceship as a counselor. Deanna Troi is the stupidest character I have seen on Trek—her whole purpose is to state the obvious. We see a scowling alien screaming over the viewscreen, and Troi predictably babbles “I sense hostility in him!” A Character holds back a few tears or talks kind-of choked up, and Troi says “I sense sadness…” Get a clue!
I’m not sure why you keep quoting someone from a “Why I hate Star Trek forum”, Psikey—unless it’s your forum. I read the blog you’re quoting from, and I think the guy is a Moron. Obviously he’s watched a grand total of two episodes and he thinks that makes him an expert. I would tell him to get a life, find something he likes to watch, and shut up. Unless he’s one of those people who’s only happy when he’s found something to complain about.
I think the guy is too far off base to be funny. Nobody is holding a gun to his head, forcing him to watch Star Trek.
True, he seems to know a lot about Trek for it to be so bad in his opinion. If I think something is bad I usually don’t pay attention to it at all.
I have chosen to violate that rule on the subject of Harry Potter because it has been in our faces so much. I just learned a few weeks ago that a Harry Potter book won a Hugo award in 2001. I watched the first HP movie years ago when it came on cable. It was pretty much what I expected, light entertainment for kids. I could not understand what the big deal was about. But communicating with people on the internet some say the books are so much better. A few months ago I found a site with the other movies, up to #5 Order of the Phoenix. So I watched them. Still the same stuff as the first except the last. I think it has a few ideas relevant to the real world. Particularly a politically motivated teacher deliberately wasting kids time with garbage. That seems to be a common practice in English speaking countries now. I have found a teacher complaining about how bad science education is in New Zealand.
So I found a torrent with the HP books and downloaded it. I read the first for comparison to the first movie I had seen. I just finished Order of the Phoenix a few days ago. On the basis of those two books the movies seem to be reasonably true to the books, the books just have more details that are removed or slightly modified to keep the movies from being too long.
But my complaint about the entire Harry Potter business is that there is so much better stuff for kids to read that this says very bizarre things about this society. It is like lots of adults want to allow kids to have heads filled with sawdust. As for adults that say they like Harry Potter, JEEZUS. And J.KRowling is the richest author in the world. I would not have read it at age 10.
True, he seems to know a lot about Trek for it to be so bad in his opinion.
Well, my complaint is that he doesn’t actually know that much. Just to take one example, his asinine idea that every starship has a “psychic” assigned to it. For one thing, Star Trek telepaths are certainly NOT what we think of as “psychics”. For another, in all my years of watching Star Trek, I’ve never gotten the idea that EVERY starship has a telepath assigned to it. If they did, you would think the Enterprise would have a full-blooded Betazoid instead of a half-blood, like Troi!
I just learned a few weeks ago that a Harry Potter book won a Hugo award in 2001. I watched the first HP movie years ago when it came on cable. It was pretty much what I expected, light entertainment for kids.
I also have to disagree with you on Harry Potter, because I’m one of those adults who likes them. I’m not sure if they deserve a Hugo award, but there your complaint would have to be with whoever hands out the awards, if they couldn’t find a better Science Fiction novel.
You definitely cannot judge the books by the movies. The novels are so much more nuanced.
But my complaint about the entire Harry Potter business is that there is so much better stuff for kids to read…