Home Home Leftcorner_menuBack menuBarBack
Community News Features About Us
Home | Submit News | Join | Settings | Logout |
Schedule
boxBottom
Advanced Search
boxBottom
News Tribblets
boxBottom
Stardates Calendar
Opinion Poll
Convention Listings
Feature Story

Features

"Damage" Offers Compelling Choice, Suffers Weak Subplots Says Deus

Features

By O. Deus / 00:01, 23 April 2004 / ENTERPRISE Reviews

Reviews Ex Deus

Title: "Damage"

Overall: 7.5
Performances: 8
Writing: 6.5
Direction: 7
FX & Prod Value: 8.5


Synopsis: Enterprise tries to recover from its pounding by stealing a warp coil. The Xindi Council bickers and T'Pol has to learn to 'just say no'.

Review: The damage in the title of this episode refers to both the physical damage we can see in the tears and devastation on the Enterprise hull and the moral damage sustained by Archer and members of his crew over the term of the Xindi mission. It's an episode that lingers over the damage Archer, T'Pol and even the Xindi see in themselves as much as it does over the lightless and beaten interiors of Enterprise itself.

The scene of the Xindi council calling off the attack early on dampens far too much of the tension too quickly, as it might have been much more helpful to keep the audience wondering why the Xindi called off the attack and whether they might
return for a while. Still, "Damage" does a credible job of showing the beating Enterprise has taken and closes as it began with a devastated ship not healed by any quick fix or technobabble solution.

While STAR TREK, particularly on TV, will never top the sense of devastation Enterprise experienced after Khan's attack, crystalized in the awful image of Scotty standing helplessly in the turbolift with a bloody body cradled in his arms, "Damage" provides
some excellent... well, damage. The exploding EPS conduit over the heads of the senior officers followed by debris raining down during the briefing is a particularly nice touch; Archer looking over the covered bodies in sickbay is a more understated moment, but arguably a more effective one that hardens both his determination and pain.

The truly inspired touch, though, is the damaged alien vessel with the warp coil that Enterprise must raid in order to stop the Xindi weapon. Unlike DS9's much-hyped "In The Pale Moonlight," Archer faces a genuinely impossible moral dilemma because circumstances give him no choice but to carry out an immoral act against innocent victims. This puts it closer to the depth of great TOS episodes like "A Private Little War," that require an immoral act for a pragmatic outcome.

When Archer's team raids the alien vessel, it visually suggests the raids on
Enterprise in "Anomaly" and "Rajiin," and thus the victims become the victimizers, as happens all too often today. Archer's final confrontation with the alien captain is brief but effective. Throughout the course of an agonizing year Archer has gone from being naive and arrogantly optimistic to a hard-driven and wounded man who acts not out of hope but pragmatism. The scientist and explorer has become the unwilling soldier.

All in all "Damage" effectively shows the price Enterprise has paid and the way
in which Archer and the crew respond to it. However the other two stories circling
around the episode, namely T'Pol Gone Wild and the Xindi council debating Archer's
claims, are a good deal weaker. The Xindi Council scenes in general to tend to deflate too much of the tension and claustrophobic atmosphere that makes for the episode's strongest scenes. Brannon Braga and Rick Berman should have learned from George Lucas's THE PHANTOM MENACE, which demonstrated that political bickering in government offices doesn't make for the best drama. Worse yet, the Xindi Council scenes represent exactly what much of "Damage" avoids, easy and quick fixes.

The Xindi Council members moving from genocide to freeing Archer and letting Enterprise go is just too implausible. Degra argues that Archer had provided proof where the Sphere Builder has not, but that is even more absurd; Archer did not prove his claims about the sphere-builders or their ambitions. All he did was prove that he might
have access to time travel, which the Xindi already know the Sphere-Builders do.
Archer did nothing to demonstrate or prove humanity's good intentions and at the same
time it's also completely implausible that Degra and the others would be so committed
to wiping out humanity without a single shred of evidence that Earth presented a threat, but just on the word of the Sphere-Builder.

Randy Oglesby continues to deliver strong performances as Degra and Tucker Smallwood is quite good too. The Sphere-Builder from the future pacing through the Xindi Council is eerie, even if her performance is so transparently malevolent that
it's absurd that anyone would take her claims seriously. Compare that to the more
subtle female shapeshifter on DS9 who didn't have to act like she was about to bake Hansel and Gretel in a giant oven to convey the presence of evil.

T'Pol's story is something else entirely. Namely an excercise in contemptible
stupidity and unforiveable ignorance. We had good reason to believe that sooner or
later TPTB would tie in something involving the anomalies and Trellium-D to T'Pol's bizarre behavior in order to get them off the hook with the STAR TREK fans Braga derides as 'Continuity Pornographers.'

But it was difficult to imagine a storyline in which we are told that Vulcans need to take drugs in order to experience emotions when in fact Vulcans experience emotions far more intense than humans--the very reason that requires them to maintain such strict control. The idea that a Vulcan needs to take drugs to experience emotions is as insane as saying that a weightlifter needs to take drugs in order to be able to put down barbells rather than to lift them up. The difficulty is in suppressing emotions, the emotions Vulcans experience all the time and must continually struggle to control using their mental disciplines. Trellium-D degrades those disciplines but those disciplines are a voluntary
excercise to begin with. It simply makes absolutely no sense at all.

Of all the aspects of STAR TREK, Vulcans have taken the worst beating from ENTERPRISE, first being cast as villains plotting to obstruct our heroes, as militarists, as
prudes, metaphorical homophobes, mind rapists and just about any nasty thing imaginable. But T'Pol's portrayal this season has really hit a whole new low. It is, of course, difficult to top the repulsive depiction of T'Pol in "Bounty," running through the halls half-undressed in a mating frenzy and having to be hunted down by Enterprise security teams, but season three has certainly been working up to it.

The bonus sexism of a woman being left in command on a ship while becoming unfocused and then hysterical, only to be relieved by the male Captain is yet another of
ENTERPRISE's thoughtful additions to the STAR TREK legacy that we will undoubtedly
treasure for years to come. Somewhere Harlan Ellison, who has spent countless hours over the past few decades shrilly complaining because Gene Roddenberry wouldn't let him portray a crew members as drug users and dealers is undoubtedly quite happy right now. Perhaps next season we can look forwards to Trip tripping out on E or Archer on crack? After all, we've now opened the door and we might as well step all the way through.

"Damage" is strongest when it focuses on the moral and physical dilemmas
of the Enterprise crew, rather than the more soap operatic elements. Unfortunately, along with the physical and emotional damage to the Enterprise and its crew, the episode suffers from its own damage as well.

Next week: There are only 5 new episodes left. Count em, that's 5 new episodes.



More Top StoriesComments
Nov 06Rumor Mill : Bryan Singer Battlestar Galactica Movie is Underway ?18
Nov 06Star Trek Online MMORPG Game Gameplay Trailer Released Online 2
Nov 06First Images from the Upcoming Star Trek The Art of the Film Book4
Nov 05Brent Spiner Criticizes Insurrection and Defends Nemesis, Stuart Baird and Rick Berman25
Nov 05J.J. Abrams in Talks to Produce Micronauts Movie7
Story Archives...Browse:   
Recent Reviews
Mar 4Azati Prime59
Feb 26Hatchery29
Feb 19Doctor's Orders40
Feb 12Harbinger101
Feb 6Stratagem56
More Reviews...
ENTERPRISE Mission Schedule | Logs by Season: 1 2 3 4
Episode Number Title Airdate

Talkback

69 comments Post New | Help
View:

Makes No Sense | Report this post to moderator
By: Guild Navigator (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:04:39 on Apr 27, 2004

You're absolutely right. T'Pol taking something that will eventually kill her like any other drug addiction makes no sense at all. She has all the classis symptoms of drug addiction. She was in denial about her self control. Continually increasing the dosage to achieve the desired effect only to be left wanting. Fortuneatly for her she finally hit bottom. In the cargo bay I think. No pun intended.

Thank goodness for Phlox. The emotional stability of the entire senior staff depends on his care and guidance. Because of his steady and calm demeanor, he has become the defacto counselor. There is no one else.

The crew of Enterprise including T'Pol makes a lot of mistakes. Often slow on their own learning curves. They usually find themselves overwhelmed and defensive. Archer has gotten to the point now that he's even wary whenever a new ship hails Enterprise. But that's the beauty of Enterprise and unique for Star Trek. The crew is allowed to fail. To be flawed. It's up to Berman and Braga, on how complex they want these characters to be. More is better for my tastes.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote

T'Pol | Report this post to moderator
By: AX (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:11:26 on Apr 25, 2004

Deus, I have to say that I think you completely misread this entire sub-plot. Here's my take on it based on what Phlox himself stated in the episode. Trellium D works by physically damaging the brain. T'Pol's emmotional control is something that requires her full mental capacity (as you yourself say), when she uses the drug to take it away she is making it impossible for herself to supress her emotions the way she once could. Thus the effect. Makes sense to me.

--------

"Time is a face on the water."




-Stephen King, The Dark Tower Series-


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: T'Pol by O. Deus @ 07:51:10 on Apr 25
    RE: T'Pol by AX @ 16:27:48 on Apr 25
       RE: T'Pol by O. Deus @ 09:10:59 on Apr 26
          RE: T'Pol by AX @ 16:15:37 on Apr 26
             RE: T'Pol by FrequencySpike @ 19:30:45 on Apr 27
       RE: T'Pol by Joe P @ 18:23:04 on Apr 25
    RE: T'Pol by FrequencySpike @ 15:35:00 on Apr 25

Damage and Deus' Review | Report this post to moderator
By: zak (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:48:30 on Apr 24, 2004

I agree with most of what you say re DAMAGE and it certainly kept my attention throughout, and most especially when either focused on the ethical dilemmas or when action was unfolding. Recognizing that one can't cite every scene in an episode in a review, there were two scenes I found defining and pivotal for both the major and sub-plots of the episode and those were the two scenes with Phlox. Interestingly, it was Phlox's comments/reaction that focused each problem- one for Archer, one for T'Pol. I've found the sub-plot with T'pol quite believable and understandable. Vulcans aren't after all totally invulnerable to everything. Certainly SPOCK never was.Phlox's reactions were particularly interesting because he clearly recognized that sometimes things move into unexpected and definitely not hoped for directions and his reactions, I thought, coupled with what Archer and later T'Pol were confronting brought an interesting clarity to a reality in which we have exactly the same sorts of dilemmas, though all too often we don't see them as they really are.
Again, I enjoyed your review and thought it right on target (and how anyone could find any part of DAMAGE insipid is not in my universe.)


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: Damage and Deus' Review by O. Deus @ 07:52:37 on Apr 25

T'Pol subplot was good | Report this post to moderator
By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:37:15 on Apr 24, 2004

I disagree completely with Deus' take on the T'Pol subplot. I thought it was incredible. We know T'Pol isn't like other Vulcans and this proves it. She has become seduced by the dark side of humans ... something foreshadowed as early as Fusion in season one and addressed directly in last season's Cease Fire ... and is now paying the price.

What would have NOT worked for me is if the b-plot had followed the spoilers, which were surprisingly inaccurate. The spoilers said that T'Pol was using T-D in order to build up immunity. In other words, she was becoming a martyr in order to save her crew, just as Spock might have done.

BOOORRRRRING!

To have T'Pol instead take the selfish route had me dropping my jaw to the floor. It was unexpcted and it was gutsy and it impressed me to no end.

Likewise, having Archer act like one of the many villains we saw on TNG or Voyager was a fantastic twist and one I could never have imagined seeing. That airlock scene in Anomaly could have been, well, an anomaly. But it wasn't.

Between Azati Prime and Damage, Enterprise is doing what many people have complained for 3 years that it hasn't done -- given us a wholly new spin on the characters and, even moreso give 40 years of same old, same old -- unpredictability.

Alex


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: T'Pol subplot was good by Cymro @ 15:49:49 on Apr 25

Um, I don't think so. | Report this post to moderator
By: rfjason (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:20:27 on Apr 23, 2004

Introducing a major breach of ethics on the Captain is not inspired, it's insipid.

The minute you have a character ignore what he knows to be moral and just, you assassinate that character as any sort of hero protagonist. You destroy everything that he is.

Whether it's a story, a real life event, or our own personal lives, we have a duty to obey our own set of ethics and morals. This has been true for over 3,000 years. Every generation has learned the consequences of choosing to not do the right thing: disaster.

In the Star Trek universe, the pinnacle moment of the breach of ethics is WWIII. After that, humanity starts to understand what it means to behave as a moral being. By the time of ENT, this should be a well-grounded fiber in all of humanity. No human being, especially one chosen to be in a point of authority, should be making unethical decisions, no matter what the event.

Yes, I realize that 7 billion humans are in the balance. But it's also a deep understanding that also goes back 3,000 years that to be a moral being, you must play by your own rules. When you save humanity by committing atrocities, you only pave the way for more atrocities to be committed (as T'Pol so lucidly pointed out before diving into full blown crack-whore mode.)

Now, as a matter of practical story-telling, this decision was piss poor. I'm sure the writers said, "yeah this'll make Archer edgy because he had to make tough choices in war!" But all it did was destroy his character's moral fiber, and make him look like a closed-eyed moron. For a better story, have Archer negotiate a taxi ride with the aliens. They ferry Archer to the rendezvous in exchange for some T-D. Now, you have druggie T'Pol in a position of command, etc. etc. while Archer DIDN'T VIOLATE ANY ETHICS TO GET HIS MISSION DONE. I mean, I'm no Captain, but even I saw this alternative right away.

The story and writing behind this episode just flat sucked.

--------

Sign the "Cancel Enterprise" Petition!


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 18:55:17 on Apr 23
    RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by TRexx @ 13:03:38 on Apr 24
       RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 21:44:20 on Apr 24
          RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by TRexx @ 00:21:49 on Apr 25
             RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 07:55:16 on Apr 25
                RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by Jadzia-Dax @ 05:57:11 on Apr 26
                   RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 09:12:43 on Apr 26
                      RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by Jadzia-Dax @ 20:17:59 on Apr 27
                         RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 06:37:24 on Apr 29
                RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by TRexx @ 15:37:55 on Apr 25
                   RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 19:03:09 on Apr 25
                      RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by TRexx @ 20:53:46 on Apr 25
                         RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 09:15:22 on Apr 26
                            RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by TRexx @ 13:57:56 on Apr 26
                               RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by O. Deus @ 06:39:58 on Apr 29
                         RE: Survival of Humanity vs. Stealing a Warp Drive by brad hall @ 01:30:26 on Apr 26
RE: Um, I don't think so. by Sullaban @ 18:50:13 on Apr 23
    RE: Um, I don't think so. by O. Deus @ 07:56:30 on Apr 25
       RE: Um, I don't think so. by lemmiwinks @ 21:00:45 on Apr 26
          RE: Um, I don't think so. by O. Deus @ 06:52:02 on Apr 29
             RE: Um, I don't think so. by lemmiwinks @ 15:55:41 on Apr 29

Boring | Report this post to moderator
By: NAFF (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:16:41 on Apr 23, 2004

Sorry this was just crap.

More Slut Vulcan footage, just for the sake of it.

Simply tedious.

Can't get any worse, though, that's the bright side.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: Boring by O. Deus @ 07:57:19 on Apr 25
RE: Boring by Sullaban @ 10:41:23 on Apr 24

Thrilling and disturbing | Report this post to moderator
By: lemmiwinks (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:26:01 on Apr 23, 2004 | Edit History (1)

I won't go too much into the semantics of whether any Starfleet captain has ever crossed a line as taboo as Archer did on Wednesday, or whether it was very "Star Trek" of him to do so. I will, however, say that this episode was supposed to shock and awe us, and it did just that. Deus is right, this was a situation that had no right answer. Rather than bicker about how convenient it was that there was an alien ship with a compatible warp coil right in the area, one can see that this was in no way a cop out on the part of the writers. It's either sit there and take a month or so to fix the ship enough for it to limp back to Earth (which probably wouldn't exist anymore), or take a chance on this opportunity to finish what they started and complete their mission. Which is the lesser of two evils; Doing something pretty nasty in order to have a chance to save your civilization, or doing nothing and losing the very home you were sent to protect?

While I finally agreed with Archer's decision in the end, I didn't through a lot of this episode. That's what I think the script was trying to convey. I had a very sick feeling in my stomach, from the film noir scene with Phlox to the point where the alien commander was pleading with Archer, almost with tears in his eyes. "I have no choice," can be a very clichéd phrase, but I don't think it was here. When you look at all of his options, he really had no choice.

One little thing for Deus, though (don't I always have one?) About T'Pol needing drugs to experience emotions: I don't recall her ever saying that the drugs helped her experience emotions, rather she was saying that by taking the trellium-D she was able to experience certain aspects of emotions without losing control over herself altogether. Unfortunately, the trellium acts like nicotine, in that once you're hooked, it's hard to control yourself without it.

Is a Vulcan taking "drugs" hard to swallow? Maybe, based on the Vulcans we have met before. But we should always remember that out of the probable billions of Vulcans that exist in the Star Trek universe, we've only become closely acquainted with at most a dozen of them throughout the entire franchise. Who's to say that there aren't rebellious Vulcans, or villainous Vulcans (remember the Vulcan Marquis on the DS9 episode that introduced them)? Why can't there be a story about a Vulcan who decided that they would go against the grain, experiment, and explore their socially restricted psyche? I think the character is staying "Vulcan enough" while still taking these new approaches.


--------

"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!" -Shran (ENT "Proving Ground"


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: Thrilling and disturbing by kxmode @ 05:35:15 on Apr 30
RE: Thrilling and disturbing by TRexx @ 14:35:40 on Apr 24
    RE: Thrilling and disturbing by lemmiwinks @ 16:53:39 on Apr 26
       RE: Thrilling and disturbing by TRexx @ 23:25:35 on Apr 26
          RE: Thrilling and disturbing by lemmiwinks @ 14:40:47 on Apr 27
             RE: Thrilling and disturbing by TRexx @ 15:46:56 on Apr 27
                RE: Thrilling and disturbing by lemmiwinks @ 16:56:10 on Apr 27
                   RE: Thrilling and disturbing by TRexx @ 18:38:38 on Apr 27
                      RE: Thrilling and disturbing by lemmiwinks @ 19:00:48 on Apr 28
                      RE: Thrilling and disturbing by Cymro @ 19:24:13 on Apr 27
                         RE: Thrilling and disturbing by TRexx @ 19:59:47 on Apr 27

"act like she was about to bake Hansel and Gretel in a giant oven | Report this post to moderator
By: Bucky (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:49:16 on Apr 23, 2004

genius. Can I steal that line?

--------

An elephant never forgets . . .TO KILL!


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote

Re: drug addiction | Report this post to moderator
By: who1 (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:06:55 on Apr 23, 2004

I agree T'Pol addiction is a convenient contrivance to explain her exploration of emotions, but I don't have a problem with the idea of a character becoming addicted to a drug - it can make for compelling drama. I'm not saying that it does in this case, it rings too falsely in the face of what we know about T'Pol and Vulcans, but I don't think it should ever be a taboo. It's a relevant issue today and episodes of Trek that have dealt with it (such as TNG's 'Symbiosis') don't hit very close to home the way a personal storyline with a main character could. Star Trek is not so elevated so as not to have one of its characters become a drug addict - if the end result is provocative and effective drama, then that justifies the storyline.


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Re: drug addiction by Jadzia-Dax @ 13:01:42 on Apr 23
    Re: drug addiction by katefan @ 14:53:39 on Apr 23

Steve... | Report this post to moderator
By: Jadzia-Dax (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:57:51 on Apr 23, 2004

... you took the words right out of my mouth. Imagine that. Image

There are a few things I would add because there WAS alot going on there, some of which was often overshadowed by other things, but I will say this:

THE GOOD:

1.) Hoshi/Travis - one of the RARE moments when these 2, the youngest members of the Bridge crew, were together working on the analysis of the Xindi-Aquatic escape pod.

I wished there was more dialog, but the 2 characters (and both actors) looked like little lost puppies in that scene and it actually would have been nice to have that scene go on longer to emphasize the little lost puppy feeling there, because THAT is what they should be feeling IF (for those who obsess that Trek should be "real"), you want "realism".

THE OKAY (needs work)

2.) The conversation about "ethics" between Archer and Phlox. This was also something that needs to happen more often and needs some more substance, but at least it was inserted.

See... Phlox, like T'Pol, needs to be a commentary character. Certainly in season 1 both were. But they have been sortof dragged along with this plot that really has little or no impact on their own societies, thus freeing them to sympathize and empathize with Humanity. However they need to be shown distinct from Humanity in order to observe and comment on how they see Humanity reacting to this.

THE BAD

3.) The negation of the contrarian position "by reason of insanity" of the one giving that position.

The contrary point of view has been one of my pet peeves in ENT. And it can be subtle or it can be impassioned as we saw with the resident Vulcan. However in this latter case, because the "passion" was released, not due to any true passion or concern, but was due to the overlay of a plot device substance, then it negates the arguments.

Plot device external factor substances that impact a character are part and parcel of Trek. However such was done to generally reveal something about that character - mostly removing "inhibitions". However in this case, it comes at the price of making a critical, inpassioned argument against a course of action, moot.

THE UGLY

1.) And so after Phlox determines that this character is a druggy, what does he do? Gives her a snort of a 22nd century Methadone-equivalent and sends her back to the Bridge.

Despite the fact that Commander Charles B. Tucker III was not only the original First Officer of this ship, but he has proven his ability at doing the job and has had more than enough experience. So there was NO NEED to NOT relieve this character from duty until her condition was stablized. I don't give a sh*t whether the sky is falling in the ship. The fact that it WAS in the conditon that it was in was HER FAULT. So what do you do? Send her right back to work. That makes lots of sense. Image

(and I hope people are not going to argue to me that the 18 people killed 3 missing out of almost 80 on board (which assumes a few less since they lost some this season) that were lost, would somehow make her SO "critical" to ANYTHING to do with the ship... and also don't argue to me that Trip is the Engineer and can't somehow direct his team from the Bridge, if he needs to really be there much, since certainly, Archer was doing a "Janeway" as people are wont to say around here, down on his back helping to repair the ship like everyone else)


--------

"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998


----


Outer Space. The last frontier.


These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise.


Its 5-year plan...


Calls for us to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations.


To boldly fly where no man has gone in space.




Patrick Stewart on SNL 2/5/94


Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
RE: Steve... by Brikar @ 13:19:36 on Apr 25
RE: Steve... by AX @ 01:28:27 on Apr 25
    RE: Steve... by Jadzia-Dax @ 06:28:34 on Apr 26
       RE: Steve... by O. Deus @ 09:25:33 on Apr 26
          RE: Steve... by Jadzia-Dax @ 20:46:32 on Apr 27
    RE: Steve... by Cymro @ 16:03:14 on Apr 25
Steve? by O. Deus @ 18:57:16 on Apr 23
RE: Steve... by chris_h @ 14:06:05 on Apr 23
    RE: Steve... by Jadzia-Dax @ 19:18:15 on Apr 23
       RE: Steve... by chris_h @ 19:53:18 on Apr 24
RE: Steve... by Steve Krutzler @ 12:07:19 on Apr 23
    RE: Steve... by ocean @ 14:54:16 on Apr 23
       RE: Steve... by Cymro @ 16:25:37 on Apr 23
Promenade

TREKSEARCH.com is back, with its searchable database of over 1600 Star Trek sites! Now you can even review your favorite site for others! Visit now!





STARGAZER: PANTHEON




TrekWeb Merchants
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.ca
Amazon.de
Barnes & Noble

Get Firefox!