menuBarBack
Beam Up News | Join | Your Account
Home
Advanced Search
boxBottom
News Tribblets
boxBottom
Stardates Calendar
News Story

Features

'T'Pol' Faces New Challenge at "Home", Plus the Newest NX Ship - First Plot Details (SPOILERS)

Features

By Steve Krutzler / 19:48, 23 July 2004 / Enterprise

Jolene Blalock let the cat out of the bag during this week's fall press tour: 'T'Pol' may be getting married. In fact, TrekWeb has received the first information on the third episode of the season in which the big event might occur, entitled simply "Home."

In the episode, slated to begin production August 4th under the direction of Allan Kroeker (who is also directing the season premiere "Storm Front, Part 1", credits), T'Pol will face her mother 'T'Las', who along with another family has arranged a Vulcan marriage for the Enterprise science officer. Producers are reportedly looking for an actress in her 60s are are open to "stunt" casting for the role.

UPN president Dawn Ostroff said earlier this week that the network would like to land popular performers in ENTERPRISE guest roles this season; TNG's Brent Spiner is already onboard for a three-part stint, and Shatner talks is omnipresent.

T'Pol's husband-to-be goes by the name of 'Koss' and looks in his late 30s by human standards. Koss is reminiscient of 'Spock', tall and imposing. But T'Pol -- as you can probably imagine -- is unsure whether to go through with the betrothal. Both T'Las and Koss could appear in later episodes.

In addition, we'll also meet the newest NX-class member of the fleet in "Home." The commemoratively-named Starship Columbia is captained by 'Erika Hernandez', a sexy Latin former colleague of 'Archer's from Starfleet's command school.

Rick Berman stated this week that the third episode of the season would be a standalone before launching into the three-part storyline focusing on Spiner as 'Arik Soong', the great-great-grandfather of 'Noonien Soong' (Data's creator) who attempts to continue the work of geneticists with embryos left over from the Eugenics Wars (story).

Until this information if confirmed by Paramount (or blurted out by one of the producers), it should be treated as rumor. "Home" will air in October.



More Top StoriesComments
Nov 22Quinto, Urban, Saldana, Cho and Greenwood on Their Hopes for Star Trek XII0
Nov 22Exclusive Digital Content Now Available With New Star Trek Movie on iTunes
1
Nov 22No J.J. Abrams Version of the U.S.S. Enterprise in the Star Trek Online MMORPG 0
Nov 21Faran Tahir on His 10 Minutes as Captain Robau in J.J. Abrams Star Trek Movie2
Nov 21J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman on Shatner and Nimoy7
Story Archives...Browse:   
ENTERPRISE Mission Schedule | Logs by Season: 1 2 3 4
Episode Number Title Airdate

Talkback

70 comments Post New | Help
View:

RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. | Report this post to moderator
By: falcon (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:47:00 on Jul 27, 2004

Quote:
Quote:
BTW, have you ever read the short story "The Procrustean Petard" by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, in "Star Trek: The New Voyages 2"? Very interesting story about taking away the Y chromosome, or adding an extra, and the results thereof.

All you have to do is looks at some genetic abberations and see the same. Or note those who have an extra - the "XXY" or the "XYY", etc.


Yes, that was brought out in the novel, when Spock and Kang each got the extra Y chromosome and became ultra-aggressive (and much stronger than normal). I think the writers did a little bit of homework when they wrote that novel.

Quote:
Quote:
"Logan's Run". LOL

Oooh, yeah, forgot about that one!

Heh... I head that someone wanted to remake that and then I haven't heard anything since.


Yeah, Bryan Singer (the X-Men director) was signed to do it after he did X-Men 3 (which hasn't started production yet), but he signed recently to direct the new Superman movie at Warner Brothers (X-Men and Logan's Run are 20th Century Fox), and from what I hear, 20th is none too pleased he's doing Superman.

But maybe he'll do Big Blue justice. At least the guy who directed the Charlie's Angels trainwrecks won't be involved anymore.

Quote:
Quote:
Why would Kirk-as-Lester put on a uniform?

Not Kirk-as-Lester. Shatner already has on the uniform. It's Lester-as-Kirk. LOL


My brain hurts!

Quote:
Quote:
And like I said, the biggest question would have been "Why?" I'm not even sure that Spock would have thought it a good idea after his mind-meld, because the truth (when it finally came out) would have been all that was necessary.

The symbollism. If she WAS "Kirk", then to me, Kirk would have immediately gone into "Kirk mode" and taken charge - including asserting his rank. And that could have been underscored by putting on the uniform.


Yes, but Kirk knew he was in another body, and he knew that anything he said would not be taken seriously by anyone. Remember when Lester-as-Kirk (I think I got it right that time) burst into Sickbay asking Spock and Bones to help him/her, and Sandra Smith played that scene just as Bill Shatner would have (even freezing when he/she saw Dr. Coleman in the same room)? It was after that that Kirk knew he wouldn't be listened to...especially after Lester removed McCoy as Lester's physician and put her in Coleman's care. He knew he had to play it careful, and putting him/herself in the gold tunic would simply have cemented "Lester's" apparent insanity.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, let's say the mind-transfer that ultimately wore off, didn't. Let's say that it was determined that Kirk was going to be stuck in Lester's body. Then, you could have logically put her in a uniform. But there wouldn't seem to be a reason to do it other than that.

As I noted, I think it would have smoothed out the problems with what the episode was trying to suggest and would have been powerfully symbollic.


And NBC probably would have pulled the episode, moving up the cancellation by a week. I'm sure the censors wouldn't have allowed a woman in uniform. That would have been interesting, though, to have a "lost" Star Trek episode. :-)

--------

A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein

PCLinuxOS

falcon

Reply
Reply
Quote
Quote
Parent
Parent
Talkback Top
Top
RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. by Jadzia-Dax @ 07:29:29 on Aug 04
    RE: Explaining the "No Female Captains" thing. by falcon @ 09:38:32 on Aug 05
Promenade










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

Get Firefox!
Privacy Policy | About Us | Legal Notice | Contact Us | | Get Firefox!
© 1996-2009 TrekWeb.com and Steve Krutzler. All rights reserved.