I know I read it. But the fact I recall next to nothing about it argues it didn’t leave much of an impression. I found it rather meh.
Rewatching Miri
- Thread starter cgervasi
- Start date
I think his relationship with the older Ruthmust have had a great influence on Kirk's behavior. Pre-Ruth, Kirk was strict and too focused on his studies and career. Post-Ruth, he added flirting and romance (and possibly kindness) into the mix.
In my reconsruction of Kirk's career, he was with Ruth in his first year at Starfleet Academy, and years later he was an lieutenant and an instructor at Starfleet Academy and was "a walking stack of books".
I don't think so. Kirk himself said he took himself too seriously and was "positively grim." I honestly think that makes him a more interesting character than the loose cannon daredevil seen in the Bad Robot films. He grew into the man we see in the series.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Kirk is shown to be highly introspective and reflective, to the point of self-deprecation at times. Mitchell enjoys giving his friend a hard time.
As mentioned above, the word Miri used was "Buttininski," not Baninski," which isn't a word.It means someone who butts in; sticks his nose where it doesn't belong; interferes with someone else's business.
Though now I'm thinking "Baninski" would be a great name for a 70s TV detective series.
Many of the "words" the children use are not real words. It's clearly pronounced baninski, which may well be a corruption of buttinsky. There's no sound which might be confused for a t-sound.
@alchemist checked the actual script for us, and it's buttinsky. You aren't hearing all the consonants because Kim Darby gave it a quickly spoken line reading.
This.
Also, "Miri" is next week's episode! (summer rerun) I find myself looking forward to it, more so than I was to "Gothos", which was this week's (though it was one of Abby's favorites).
Whether buttinsky was written in the script doesn't change the fact that the word spoken was not that.
It's on Netflix. You can listen to it over and over as many times as you like.
Welcome to the BBS. Since you are new here, you may have missed some context. For the past five years or so, @Neopeius has been doing a kind of long-term 'living history/re-enactment' project, consuming science fiction media from 55 years ago in the order and schedule in which it was released. It's referenced in his signature line as well. So repeatedly watching an episode on demand would be counter to that, since it wasn't possible at the time.
More about the project here: http://galacticjourney.org/
Kor
@Neopeius can explain better, but I believe he is adhering to his viewing schedule no matter what the current discussion topics here may be. This thread was started by a different BBS member. Also, I think the Galactic Journey project is now up to eight years or so rather than five.
Kor
Haha. No one's doing anything wrong, here. Sorry if it sounded like you were being lectured, @cospelero.
Kor is just explaining why my comments sometimes appear strangely out of time (and why I won't be watching Trek on-demand Netflix).
I keep a foot in both eras. I'm in this thread because the topic is "Miri" and I've seen it recently (and will be watching it again next week--because that's when it played 55 years ago during summer reruns).@Kor, I've actually been on the Journey for thirteen years. I started writing articles nearly nine years ago, when I had enough experience and material built up. But 1954 is when it started. Can you believe folks were complaining that SF was dying then?
Why oh why did it matter to the plot that the enterprise of the crew had found a look alike planet to Earth in this episode, then obviously had the same continents and the same oxygen nitrogen mixture; and how does that play into the plot? …
of beings 300 years ago trying to extend their lives that went awry, and children catching the disease on puberty?
thanks for any contributions thoughts or knows on this topic!
of beings 300 years ago trying to extend their lives that went awry, and children catching the disease on puberty?
thanks for any contributions thoughts or knows on this topic!
It didn't. The "exact duplicate of Earth" was a cheap gimmick to get the viewing audience hooked. It has absolutely no bearing on the story, and in fact is never mentioned again after the pre-credit teaser.
Next question?
It was just done to put some intrigue in the teaser. "A little mystery sugar-coating" as Kirk would say. And it reflected one of early Star Trek's influences, The Twilight Zone, which would always throw one impossible thing into an otherwise straight drama, because it makes people want to see what happens.
Probably because it was cheap to use a globe (cloudless, no less) -- they used it again in "Tomorrow is Yesterday".
That said, I like it a LOT. It's not kind of Earthlike. It's not Class M. It's Earth. And we actually see that globe again, though it's often disguised with colored haze (and sometimes reversed).
My rationalization is that there are lots of parallel Earths scattered around the galaxy. Maybe constructed, maybe fractures of a kaleidoscopic creation. And that's why there are so many humanoids around. The "Preservers" theory is not contradictory to this idea.
