33 new of 49 responses total.
When your commander tells you to set your weapon a certain way, it is natural (probably mandatory) to check it to make sure that's how it's set.
You start a new Item with the command enter . Actually, this is a problem, because too many "incompetent newuser"s issue the command enter, when they can't think of what else to do, so conferences get seeded with lots of silly Items, where grexers play. In regard to phasers - they are checking to make sure they are charged.
Fact is, they're checking 'em because the director thinks it looks cool.
Well, sure, but you're supposed to *play the game*.
I bet the phasers are normaly set on "melancholy" *ZAP* "man... I gotta get off this planet..."
There's a very simple explanation. The arms have a multiple position select-fire switch. Just like current technology select-fire arms. The position they're switching *from* is called SAFE. This is the place the arms are normally set. They then set to Stun, Kill, Sautee, or Rotiserie. Current select-fire technology switch from SAFE to semi-auto, burst, or full-auto. Some models don't have burst modes.
I can recall some episodes where adjustments were not made and weapons came out shooting in the stun mode (ie no safety and normally on stun). I would think they all check the phasers because their commander just gave them an order and they had better make sure they are in compliance (a la #17 above). The episode I am thinking of is when Riker did a short stunt as XO on a Klingon cruiser. When the Klingon captain was inadvertently beamed to the Enterprise, Warf shot him (as best as I can recall) without touching his phaser settings. He drew his weapon when the Klingon captain materialized, and proceeded to shoot when the captain began to draw his weapon Speaking of TNG stuff, I saw a rerun from this season(?) where a crew member committed suicide by leaping into the engine's plasma stream because of the old memory traces there from a similar event, etc... WHY didn't Warf shoot him with his phaser to prevent the guy from leaping? That was the logical thing to do, instead of having Riker try to talk him down. (BTW, I mean stun setting, not barbecue).
Warf, as Security Chief, would have his phaser armed at all times.
rrrespond Worf probably didn't fire because he didn't want to blow up the ship,...
I doubt firing on stun setting would harm the ship. Even if so, it was not exactly a difficult shot.
Kirk Lives! Latest word is that due to Trekkie uproar, they are re-shooting the final sequences of the movie so that Kirk doesnt die but is given some other yet to be be revealed fate. Shatner, Patrick Stewart and th other principals were called back to the studio a couple of weeks ago for re-shooting. Not sure of whether this is a good sign or not. You usually dont re-shoot finished films unless they are major turkeys. Last Trek on a klingon warbird was a little too er.........original? "."
Last message got a little garbled......I was going to o say that I think they are also editing a keysequence involving the crash landing of the enterprise and the escape of the crew on a klingon warbird......awfully original as I said Last Trek film they editied like this at the last minute was ST: The MOtion Picture Enough said there....
I had heard quite a while ago (last summer, to be exact) that on Shatner's insistence, they had changed the ending so Kirk got to live. But then in TV Guide a week or so ago there was an interview with Shatner, and although he was coy about whether Kirk was going to live or die, the clear implica- tion of what he said was that Kirk was going to die. But Shatner might have been lying to make the ending a surprise. Also, although the interview was *published* recently, I'm not sure how long ago it was *taped.* So we have conflicting evidence .... My money says Kirk lives, though. Although I was kind of hoping he'd die -- I liked him in the original series, but I've gotten sick of him in the movies. Actually, though, this whole debate may be pointless. Even if Kirk *does* die -- hey, this is science fiction, they could always figure out a way of bringing him back. Remember Spock, remember Superman?
Additional note: in the episode in TNG where Picard first meets Sarek, he says: "I met your son on the occasion of his wedding." Yet no subsequent mention of said wedding, or the wife's whereabouts, in the later episode where Picard meets Spock, who is living, apparently wifeless, in the Romulan underground. Are they ever going to follow this up? Will the new movie mention it? (Hopefully not, since so far the movies have not done well at continuity with TNG. Consider STVI -- purple Klingin blood, although Worf's is red; Klingon/Fed peace during time of Enterprise-A, although TNG says not until Enterprise-C; warbirds that can fire when cloaked, although the Romulans in TNG seem to have forgotten this improvement. As clever Trekkers we can resolve all these inconsistencies -- but still, it bodes ill.)
Oaky, [D[D[D
Heres the real lowdown, courstey of rec.arts.startrek.......apparently the
ending was re-fiolmed because test audiences tididnt think Kirks death was
dramatic enough or relevant enough to the film. So the seen of kirk dying
in Picards arms after being shot buy Malcolm McDowell was cut and
the new scene has Kirk falling off a cliff as a consequence of preventing bad
guy McDowell from getting what he wants......no final words from Kirk
in this cut, just a ne w more dramatic sequence.
Film still ends or still shows rather Picard burying Kirk and placing
Kirk's captain ensignia on top of the grave, so dont think he'll be back any
time soon.......
And the film still shows the Duras sisters blowing up the Entriprise D
so sthe ship wasnmt saved at the last minute either........
Still it sounds like a good movie, surely better than V or VI and if Marinka
Sirtis really has anude scenme, so much the btetter!
I still think the idea of having the Enterprise get defeated *again*, by a klingon ship is getting really tired and overused. They already did this in the third movie.
This is coming out a day before my birthday. Too damn bad I have to work. :(
what? No one organizing a grexpedition to see it on Thursday night?
Pattie
Nope, because my parents will take me to see it for free on my birthday. >8)
Well, ok I saw the "Generations" movie finally on Saturday. I thought it had
some flaws but on the whole was a godod movie wiorthy of the STark Trek name My
one beef is they took out the skydiving scene that orignially was to have been
at the Start of the movie. Aklso I wish some of the characters had more to do
than just stand around.
aL IN ALL, A GOOD MOVIE THOUGH....star rtrejk lives!
It was absolutely above average Star Trek. Thank goodness they stopped looking for God. :-)
I finally saw it. Loved it.
I've seen the damn movie already,they killed the ship.
Who's going to the Dec. 11 release of Insurrection?
Shows you how out of it I am, I didn't even realize it was coming out this year... >8)
Oh duh, that's right. Julie and I will have to see-- we get married the next morning.
Congratulations. I will probably not get to see it until at least mid Feb., being in Germany and all. :(
Star Trek: Discovery or The Orville?
I forgot Orville exists have to watch more
I saw a couple of The Orville episodes while they were on YouTube (since taken down). They were a lot of fun, more homage than parody. STD might be interesting, but I don't feel motivated to go out of my way to see it. It's obviously not my TOS, but I've got my memories and BDs.
papa: you are like the Grex-topic phoenix. :) I have no idea what Orville, STD or TOS are but i imagine they are something good.
resp:47
"Grex topic phoenix". That's a cool title, though I can't (yet) claim credit
for flaming a backtalk topic to death.
I apologize for the Star Trek fan terminology. There have been seven official
Star Trek television series to each of which fans have applied
after-the-fact a three-letter abbreviation for convenience of reference.
1. TOS - "Star Trek" (1966-69) ("The Original Series"[*])
2. TAS - "Star Trek" (1973-74) ("The Animated Series"; a Saturday-
morning children's cartoon)
3. TNG - "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1987-94)
4. DS9 - "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-99)
5. VOY - "Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001)
6. ENT - "Star Trek: Enterprise" (2001-05)
7. STD - "Star Trek: Discovery" (2017-present) (STD is also a common US
abbreviation for "Socially-Transmitted Disease")
STD is a current attempt to revive the franchise on television. I have
seen no more of it than a few reviews on YouTube, but the attempt has
attracted much fan controversy. I have heard that a recent episode
featured a series-impacting plot twist that's the most ill-conceived fan
service in the history of television.
"The Orville" is another science fiction television series that started
broadcasts in the US in 2017. The series was created and stars Seth
MacFarlane who is most famous for creating the animated series "Family
Guy". I saw a few of the initial episodes which were briefly available
on YouTube (they have since been deleted). MacFarlane is apparently a
fan of Star Trek of the TNG generation, and The Orville does a lot of
homage to many of the older series. It could be described as a clone of
TNG with a comedic touch. Star Trek fans seem to like The Orville better
than STD, though television critics feel the opposite. The responder
felt the episodes viewed were not profound, but nostalgically
entertaining.
[*] The abbreviation TOS is somewhat controversial among True Fans like
the responder, similar to the resentment True Star Wars Fans feel
toward the attaching of an episode number or subtitle to the One
True Movie Called "Star Wars".
Thanks for that papa! That cleared that up nicely :). I can't believe TOS only ran for 3 years? I remember it well. The reference to a phoenix, btw, was intended to refer to the act of rebirth, from the flames an old thread arrises; not flames of any other kind. :)
You have several choices: