Talk:Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Untitled

It would possibly be appropriate to mention something about the similarity in strucure of Bendii Syndrome and Alzheimers, both of which erode the most valued of mental faculties. Has anyone seen any references that can be used on the subject? SkepticalGal 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not specifically for Alzheimers, but I've added cites to the article which explains that it was a reference to Roddenberry's declining health at the time. He didn't suffer from Alzheimer, but by that time he had one stroke, and was about to have another which left him partly paralysed. Miyagawa (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Go on then. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Three paragraphs seems too many for the lead.

• I've merged the first and second paragraphs. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Initially pitched to appear in the episode which became "Yesterday's Enterprise", Roddenberry suggested that Lenard could appear as Sarek in The Next Generation as it would have been too expensive for Leonard Nimoy to reprise his role of Spock on television. Sarek's health in the episode was a reference to the declining health of Roddenberry himself. The inclusion of Sarek, and the mention of Spock in the final episode was seen by the crew as a breakthrough which allowed the series to reference Star Trek: The Original Series more freely which Roddenberry had previously barred." I'm really struggling with both of these sentences

• I've re-written and re-ordered this. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Who or what are the Legarans?

• Added further explanation. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• What's a "second aide"?

• Changed to second assistance. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Picard realizes they may need to cancel the conference" What conference?

• Added an earlier mention. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The Vulcan telepathic issues were then developed, with Sarek only being added to the episode at a late stage in order to ensure that the impact on the audience" I don't follow

• I've re-written this, hopefully it makes more sense now. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "sought to "simply push fanboy's buttons", but" Could you check your source? The apostrophe's wrong here.

• That's what I get for reading something, putting the book down and then writing out what I thought I remembered. I've corrected it - the apostrophe shouldn't be there, and I'd managed to chance the tense as well. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Italics or not for A.V Club?

• Should have been italics - I've changed the cite to match the body of the article. Miyagawa (talk)

• I'm seeing a lot of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar; have you had a look through them?

• I had another look through and found a further useful hit - I'd thought I'd already included something which compared it to Alzheimer, but I'd missed it out. So that's now added. The problem for this is a little unique - the title of the episode is not only the name of a recurring character in the franchise, but it's also the name of one of the novels. So there's a heck of a lot of his for +Sarek +"the next generation" in any search, but the majority are simply where the character gets a mention and TNG gets a later mention. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That should be enough for now. This is a nice little article; the sources and images are solid, it's brief yet comprehensive, and it's well-structured. I feel that, in places, the writing fell a little short, but I've done some pretty heavy copyediting; please do double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing, and thanks for the copyedits. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes. A few more comments:

• "While he is aboard the ship, the crew experiences an outbreak of irrational anger amongst themselves which is only resolved after Sarek mind melds with Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart)." Looking again, I'm not sure that this is the best summary of the episode; you don't mention Sarek's illness, which seems to be key. Were you trying to avoid spoilers? The mind meld seems to be more a spoiler, to me, but I would be inclined to say that both should be mentioned.

• I wish I was being that clever - I think I was simply over succinct. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Sarek's health in particular, was intended to be a reference to the declining health of Roddenberry." This feels like a bit of non-sequitur; it comes out of nowhere.

• This might now work better with the extra detail added to the plot. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Picard is surprised to find Sarek attending the concert with Perrin" Why is this surprising?

• I've trimmed that - it was something about his reliance on Perrin emotionally, but it isn't necessary for the plot section to cover that level of detail. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Looking again at the production section, I'm a little puzzled by which script is which. We have a script which "would eventually become the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise"", an "original pitch", and a plot which "at first featured an original character instead of Sarek". Are these three completely separate scripts? I'm struggling. Or are you saying that there was a plan to include Sarek, then there was a plot which became a different episode, then a plot that was dropped for not being close enough to The Next Generation, then the one they actually went for? This could all be a bit clearer, I think.

• There was two - "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Sarek". I've copy-edited that entire portion of the section. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "with the script only calling for a reference by Picard to Sarek's son's wedding" This would be an early version of the script rather than the final one, surely?

• Yep, added that clarification. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The third season had seen a relaxation in Roddenberry's previous direction that The Next Generation could not touch on aspects of The Original Series." This is a bit weaker than the claim made in the lead.

• It is - the breakthrough part comes from the quote by Michael Piller just at the end of that paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Reception and home media release" Given that broadcast is a kind of release, perhaps this section could be renamed to "Release and reception"? Just a suggestion.

• I like it. Although now I have to wonder about going back and updating those sections in the 120 odd GA episodes! Miyagawa (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a strong article, and I'm sure I'll be happy to promote soon. Again, please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Great; just acknowledging that I've seen this, and will hopefully be back at some point over the weekend to give the article another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm very happy with this, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discovery Continuity

Sarek was on the ‘’Discovery,’’ so he knew about the spore drive. He melded with Picard in this episode, so Picard knows what he knows. A few weeks later Picard got assimilated, so the Borg know about it. Why didn’t they try to assimilate the mycelia network? Why didn’t Seven ever mention it to Janeway, for that matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.142.55 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160819144625/http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4183/star-trek-the-next-generation-season-3/ to http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4183/star-trek-the-next-generation-season-3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065331/http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/59929/star-trek-the-next-generation-season-three/ to http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/59929/star-trek-the-next-generation-season-three/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)