From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: epwise{at}yahoo.com
Subject: Re: The alt.tv.star-trek.tos FAQ

Graeme  wrote in
news:17ac71aa-3266-4478-906c-711e502a0650{at}googlegroups.com: 

> On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 5:49:33 AM UTC-6, Wiseguy wrote:
>>>Then years later [Roddenberry] changes his mind?  No, doesn't work
>>>for me 
> . 
> 
> Nor me.  But Paramount defines what canon is, not us.  We don't have
> to salute it, just take note of it. 
> 
> 
>>>Well, it's pretty safe to compare Star Trek to Baywatch.
> 
> So opinions are okay then, as long as they're commonly enough held?
> 
> 

No, because Baywatch is obviously inferior to any Star Trek by most 
methods of dramatic criticism.  But comparing the different Star Treks 
is a little more difficult and most of the time opinions make biased 
criticisms of certain Star Trek series and make it seem worse than it 
is.
 
>>>Oh, come on.  You're picking nits.
> 
> I said that I've put Kenney in the FAQ, I'm not sure what more you
> want.  This is no more a nit than arguing Played By vs. Voiced By. 
> 
> 
>  
>>>Yes, when you're discussing TOS characters but Arex and M'Ress were
>>>only 
>  
> animated characters therefore only "voiced by." 
>>>
> 
> As I say, I consider voicing to be a form of playing.  If someone
> tells me that Mel Blanc "played" Bugs Bunny, I'm not going to quibble
> with them too much, because as you said yourself, picking nits is
> wrong. 
> 
> On the other hand, it does seem important to be clear when more than
> one person is involved in a character.  With a character like Darth
> vader or the Robot from Lost in Space, it is important to be clear
> which person voiced him and which played him.  Sometimes the
> distinction is fuzzy, though.  Like Andy Serkis didn't merely voice
> Gollum.  With the state of CGI technology today, he actually did act
> out the motions, before CGI was layered on to completely change his
> appearance.  That's not the case with TAS, of course. 
> 
> 
>>>You didn't say with commercials.  Usually one speaks of filling a 
> certain time slot or so long with commercials as to avoid confusion.
>>>
> 
> Well, I went back and checked the DVD, and The Cage is in fact only
> 63:22.  Enough for a 90 minute time slot now, but not then.  I think
> Making of Star Trek had said it was 75 minutes, but that's obviously
> not the case.  So, I've put 64 minutes into the FAQ and now there
> should be no confusion about whether I mean with or without
> commercials. 
> 
> 
>>>As I said, I don't remember exactly but at the time [the Klingon
>>>Ridge st 
> ory] all made 
> sense to me. 
>>>
> 
> It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  In the Klingon's initial outing
> (Errand of Mercy), Kor has this speech about how much humans and
> Klingons are alike as a species.  It loses its meaning if they're only
> temporarily alike because of some failed genetic experiment, and Kor
> is actually deeply ashamed of what he seems to be fine with in the
> episode.  Enterprise's explanation sounds like a minor retcon to say
> the least.  Still, it is canon (or at least it was before Trek 11), so
> I guess the explanation should be mentioned in the FAQ for
> completeness sake.  On the other hand, was it ever really canon? 
> Doesn't Enterprise turn out to be a holonovel that Troi and Riker are
> watching in the end (and maybe only loosely based on the "real"
> Archer)?  I don't know, because I don't know the other shows nearly as
> well as TOS (usually for the same reason that I don't know much about
> Baywatch either). 
> 
> 

I think Kor was talking more about attitudes and such and not 
appearances. Kor wouldn't have shown shame to Kirk anyway.  But he did 
show up with the ridges on DS9 so either he was affected by the 
experiment or else he had cosmetic surgery because he wanted the ridges.

Since many Trek fans hate Enterprise for various reasons, they 
immediately cite the last episode as showing that Enterprise wasn't 
real.
Surely by this point people should realize that technology would allow 
historical records to be shown on the holodeck by the time of TNG. 
Certainly the writers/producers wouldn't even hint at Enterprise not 
being real in an actual Enterprise episode.  Just fanwanking by haters 
of Enterprise who refuse to see what actually is shown onscreen.
 
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux