rogermccoy.bsky.social
Occasional writer. Mostly here for the Star Treks.
100 posts
18 followers
29 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
For iTunes, Star Trek: The Next Generation is in the top 10 worldwide.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek Beyond are in the top 10 for some countries.
flixpatrol.com/top10/itunes...
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
comment in response to
post
Sources (note the data is always for the *current* week and will change over time):
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
flixpatrol.com/title/star-t...
Not going to link to every Trek page, but I've checked them all and they're easy to find.
comment in response to
post
I've always had a fondness for both those YA books and New Frontier. I even briefly referenced the original YA trilogy in my Strange New Worlds 2016 story.
www.simonandschuster.com/books/Worfs-...
www.simonandschuster.com/books/Strang...
comment in response to
post
Worth noting that the Brikar species (such as Rok-Tahk from #StarTrekProdigy) was created by PAD for the Starfleet Academy novella "Worf's First Adventure". The Brikar character Zak Kebron from that novella became a main character of #StarTrekNewFrontier. A rare case of Trek novel canon "ascending".
comment in response to
post
memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/2367 errs on the side of "Family", "Suddenly Human", then "Brothers".
Putting "Brothers" first puts the season in stardate order, though that usually doesn't impact the airdate order or the Chronology order (at least for episodes as opposed to other events).
comment in response to
post
www.heatherbuchanan.ca/products/lie...
comment in response to
post
Finally, by the end of "Blood Oath" (DS9) Kang decided "Perhaps it is a good day to live!"
Most characters who say that it's a "good day to die" survive, so appropriately enough Kang promptly dies. Dax says "It's never a good day to lose a friend."
Did I miss any good/bad days to do stuff? (5/5)
comment in response to
post
It's said twice in the "Such Sweet Sorry, Part 2" (DSC).
Ma'ah says "Today is a good day to be a—" but is interrupted in "wej Duj" (LD).
Worf also says "Today was a good day to die" in "Imposters" (PIC).
Malor says "Today is not a good day to die" in "The New Next Generation" (LD). (4/5)
comment in response to
post
"Sins of the Father"* (TNG) (x2), "Blood Oath" (DS9) (x3), "The Way of the Warrior" (DS9), "By Inferno's Light" (DS9), "Soldiers of the Empire"* (DS9), "Once More Unto the Breach"* (DS9), Star Trek: First Contact*, "Dragon's Teeth" (VOY), and "Prophecy" (VOY).
* Written by Ronald D. Moore
(3/5)
comment in response to
post
"It is a good day to die" *is* in TNG twice; Worf and Kurn each say it once in "Sins of the Father".
Best I can tell variations of "good day to die" including "Today would be a [very] bad day to die" and "Today was not my day to die" appear 12 times over 9 "classic" eps/movies. (2/5)
comment in response to
post
Incidentally, they forgot to promote the Lower Decks from Ensigns to Lieutenants Junior Grade @mikemcmahan.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Though I'm happy to see most of the cast up for FYC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they've only submitted Tawny Newsome and Jack Quaid in previous years.
comment in response to
post
Possibly two of them
comment in response to
post
The phrase you're looking for is "tacky fascist Cardassian eyesore"
comment in response to
post
Not sure if it's on the Amazon side or the IDW side, but since series can live or die based on early non-discounted purchases I hope it gets addressed so people can appreciate the work @ryannorth.ca @jlawrenceart.bsky.social @heatherantos.bsky.social and others are doing.
comment in response to
post
I know it's a meme/joke, but I'm waiting for a future "historian" to include this in a "History of Star Trek" book, because it seems oddly plausible.
www.startrek.com/videos/my-fi...
comment in response to
post
BTW, here's the article in question:
www.startrek.com/news/star-tr...
comment in response to
post
For those who bothered to look at the article, it does in fact talk about "Lower Decks" in the "Honorable mention" category (but no Lower Decks episodes). So why blame the person doing the collage?
I'm assuming there was a reason why Ryan Britt avoided including LD eps, though I'm not sure why.
comment in response to
post
Just FYI: This is still an issue, so subscribers at www.amazon.com/dp/B0DK9KNPRJ won't get the issue coming out tomorrow, at least not without ordering it separately. I'd hate for this book to lose sales because people were unintentionally missing releases.
comment in response to
post
Though the book describes the opera as post-Star Trek VI, and Greenberger's comments were published in late 1990/early 1991 when development on the movie was just barely announced, so not sure if that's an error, in reference to a different project, or a different iteration or the same one?
comment in response to
post
Wait, I stand corrected: Fifty-Year Mission does discuss it in volume two. That's what I get for only checking volume one initially. My bad @markaaltman.bsky.social .
comment in response to
post
Specifically, he mentioned it in the letters pages of Star Trek #13, 14, 16, and 17 from DC Comics in 1990/1991. Not sure if it was discussed in magazines (like The Official Fan Club Magazine) from the same time period. Didn't spot any mention in The Fifty-Year Mission by @markaaltman.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Nah, just picking a rewatch viewing order, and since some say #Section31 is 2323 based on stardate I could place it either before or after.
I'm kind of leaning toward treating the movie as being 2330s. Just curious if you had a take, or at least an instinct. I'm almost certainly overthinking.
comment in response to
post
Though San has aged *extremely* well, so maybe better *a little* earlier to make him younger without making Garrett too much older??
comment in response to
post
I think all we definitely have in the movie is after 2314. Stardate aside, I was kind of leaning toward 2332–2333 myself based on the ages of the Garrett actresses.
comment in response to
post
Fair enough. Alright, here's a request for another second opinion then:
Barring definite in-universe evidence, would you personally place this event before or after the Academy stuff in "Tapestry"? I've been working through a timeline rewatch and I've been wrestling with this question all week.
comment in response to
post
Larry, you mentioned something about this possibly originally being 2333 and then altering in production...
I saw a few places like the New York Times mention 2333 as well, but I wasn't sure where it originated. Any idea? Was it mentioned in press kits or something?
comment in response to
post
That's from the original NBC promo before the show aired, right?