Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Beyond the Farthest Star (episode)

37,169pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TAS forum at The Trek BBS.



TributeEdit

Was the title of DS9's "Far Beyond the Stars" a tribute to the name of this episode? -- 193.61.255.84 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it was just a coincidence. Writers are rarely aware of TAS. Jaz talk 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not entirely true. In fact, I think Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, along with Star Trek: Enterprise, put more references to the animated series than any of the other spin-offs. Things such as Kor's previous commands and Spock's birthplace – both first referenced in TAS – made it to DS9/ENT. As for this episode's title, I wouldn't be surprised if they were aware of the TAS episode, but I doubt the actual naming had anything to do with it. --From Andoria with Love 03:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

beyond the farthest star Edit

Seems to have a fallen image of spock's initiative to be part of star fleet command, but the following has made the log a most remarkable ethic for the control center of the computer brain offline as well as the media reprensation of the real stars....

Huh? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Around the star, not through it Edit

I removed this because I don't think it's true:

The "warp drive unit" in this episode seems to allow the Enterprise to warp through a dead star.

The animation and storytelling in the animated episodes is not very good, so sometimes it's hard to tell what's going on. As I understand it, The Enterprise did not go through the dead star; it raced closer and closer to it, got just close enough to scare the creature into fleeing the ship, then engaged warp drive to slingshot around the star, thus breaking free of its gravity.


Possible Link to Star Trek 5? Edit

Interesting that an entity that can "merge" with starships wanted to head to the centre of the galaxy. Was it planning to rescue the similarly trapped entity that appeared in Star Trek 5? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.123.73.38 (talk).

Since the movie came out much later than this episode, that is not likely. Even if that aspect of the movie was taken from this episode, it would need a citation that such a similarity was deliberate to be included in the article.--31dot 22:22, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Scotty - continuity Edit

Does anyone know if this error was corrected for the DVD release? I have viewed the episode, and the mentioned scene, a few times and fail to see the error. --Redknight 17:50, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Huh? --OuroborosCobra talk 15:08, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
A reply a little better than "huh?" would help, but allow me to go into further detail:
The 'Continuity' section of the article states
"When Scotty is pinned beneath the engineering casing, for a brief moment he is shown wearing the insignia of a Captain."
I have reviewed the episode from the DVD a number of times and fail to see the error. Is it possible that the error was corrected for the DVD release? --Redknight 16:55, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Log entry Edit

The description of the alien log entry currently says: "A ship's log starts playing, explaining that the original crew tried to crash into the star remnant to destroy a malevolent entity that was terrorizing the crew."

This is inaccurate. Here is the entire log entry:

Danger! Danger! The dead star... we are being drawn to it! Rather than carry this malevolent life form to other worlds, we have decided to destroy our own ship! There is no other answer! If you understand this message, you are protected only for this moment in this room! This thing, it wants...

No mention of any attempt to crash into the dead star, and nothing about the entity "terrorizing the crew". Since those assertions are not supported by anything in the episode, I am replacing them with a more accurate summary of what the log entry actually says. Pat Berry 12:30, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration Edit

The "Title, Story and Script" section states that this episode was inspired by the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel of the same name. The 1995 edition of the Star Trek Concordance is cited as the source of this information.

This claim is obviously wrong, for two reasons:

  • In the very next bullet item, the episode's author, Samuel A. Peeples, is quoted as saying "As far as the inspiration for the story, I don't have the vaguest idea." This directly contradicts the Burroughs claim. If Peeples had been inspired by the Burroughs novel, he would be aware of it, yes?
  • The Burroughs novel does not even slightly resemble this episode. It's the story of a World War II Allied pilot who is shot down behind German lines and wakes up naked on the planet Poloda, 450,000 from Earth. He joins the air force of his new home country, Unis, which has been at war with the country Kapara for over a century. It is not plausible that this story could inspire a script about a 300-million-year-old derelict starship in orbit around a dead star, inhabited by a malevolent magnetic entity.

Clearly, someone noticed that the episode had the same title as the novel and jumped to a conclusion that was not supported by any facts. Unless someone objects, I plan to delete the claim that the episode was inspired by the Burroughs novel. It may have been published in the Concordance, but it's still wrong. Pat Berry 13:36, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted. If anything, the conflict should be noted. If the Concordance states that it was, then note that. Then put a "despite this, author Peeples says blah". We're not here to determine which source is more accurate than others. Just to share them all. -- sulfur 13:39, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Sulfur is correct. But here, there isn't even an inconsistency. The Concordance note as it currently stands claims that the episode's title was inspired by the novel, nothing more. The Peeples quote is then talking about how he isn't sure what inspired the story.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 13:49, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Cleanse. This is failure of reading comprehension on my part. I simply missed the word "title" in the Concordance note, and perceived a contradiction where none exists. Mea culpa. -- Pat Berry 05:58, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki