I'm sure there are more, but none come to mind. Jaz talkFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Some episodes are hard to define as "bottle shows", DS9's particularly. -- When it rains... it pours 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very true, DS9 bottle shows are hard to ID. I suppose "Civil Defense" could be one. -- Tough Little Ship 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just felt I should add [1] this link here, which listed a couple ENT bottleshows, and why their used. [2] - AJ Halliwell 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
DS9 Bottles
Starship Down would be a good example of a DS9 bottle. Igotbit
- No, actually, it does not. It takes place entirely off DS9. Now, that could be forgiven, as it mostly takes place within the Defiant, but there are a number of other problems. It has a major, and possibly expensive, guest star, James Cromwell. The guy has been in movies (Star Trek: First Contact for example. In addition, a new starship model had to be made for this episode (I'm pretty sure this is the first time we see the Karemma starship), and it has LOTS of special effects shots of the battle in that atmosphere. Seems to break just about all the rules. --OuroborosCobra talk
14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the episode was actually supposed to have a lot more special effects, which in turn would have made it an even more expensive show. The original story outline had the Defiant crashing in a water planet rather than a gas planet. --From Andoria with Love 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to the DS9 Companion, the producers considered (at a minimum) "Duet" and "The Wire" bottle shows, despite the fact that they both featured a regular guest (Garak) and in both cases another "major" guest star. They define the term as "a show deliberately written to require a minimum number of special effects, actors, and new sets", and both of these episodes seem to meet that definition fairly well. -- Sulfur 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the episode was actually supposed to have a lot more special effects, which in turn would have made it an even more expensive show. The original story outline had the Defiant crashing in a water planet rather than a gas planet. --From Andoria with Love 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds to me then that we have a new, more official definition of theterm. We should change the article description to say that. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- DoneCapt Christopher Donovan 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
TOS Bottle shows
I am removing the following as they all had a significant number of guest stars:
I am not sure about "The Changeling". It had a bunch of special effects, I think. Honestly, I have not seen it in years. --OuroborosCobra talk 
01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that "Ultimate Computer" at least could be re-added to the list. They had ONE "big" guest part, one "lesser" part, and only a handful of extras (less then they usually had for sure). Also, 98% of the FX shots were reused "stock" shots.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hadn't watched that one in a while either. I remember there being more guest stars. Re-adding. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- See also the terminology used in the DS9 companion (noted above). By that definition, Ultimate Computer would definitely fit. Heck, the DS9 people considered "Civil Defense" a bottle show. -- Sulfur 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heck, I'd consider readding "Mark of Gideon" too. It only had two real speaking parts outside the main cast (the girl and her father) and ONE scene that had any sizable amount of extras (the 'faces' scene).Capt Christopher Donovan 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is also Krodak and Fitzgerald. That brings it up to 4 speaking parts, plus all of those extras. For TOS, that is actually quite a few guests. --OuroborosCobra talk
03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is also Krodak and Fitzgerald. That brings it up to 4 speaking parts, plus all of those extras. For TOS, that is actually quite a few guests. --OuroborosCobra talk
- I'll admit it's been awhile since I've seen the ep, but did Krodak actually speak? So that's one major speaking part (the girl) and three minor parts (the father, Krodak, and Fitzgerald) and ONE scene where we have a body of extras (faces). Contrast that with the number of scenes they had where ordinarily they WOULD have a lot of extras but didn't.
- I make this case not to argue for it's own sake but because I feel it's a legit issue that needs settling. What constitutes "few" or "fewer than normal"? What about shows like "Mirror Mirror"? No new sets, only two extra speaking parts, minimal FX BUT it recostumed several characters. Where do the trade off's add up or not?Capt Christopher Donovan 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since I'm the one who put the TOS examples up, allow me to argue my position, specifically regarding Gideon. I can see taking Babel off the list. I was kind of 50/50 on that one, but I have seen reviewers on other Trek sites label it as a bottle show. Depends on how loose one is with the definition I suppose. Now we do have at least one TOS episode that we know for sure is a bottle show, and that's "The Naked Time" (John D.F. Black even admitted in an interview that it was created as a bottle, and since he wrote it himself, who are we to argue?). So if we take that episode as a reasonable standard for judging what makes a TOS bottle, I think Gideon more than passes the test. First, all of Gideon's sets are existing or redressed Enterprise sets, there's nothing new there at all. Second, there are very, very few special effects (less than in Naked Time even, and about as little as we've ever seen in any episode of any Star Trek series). And both episodes had the same number of guest actors with dialogue: two significant roles (Riley/Tormolen, Odona/Hodin), a minor role that appears in only one scene (the crewman blocking Rand in the corridor, the Admiral), and a one-line role (the laughing crewman, Krodak).--69.250.13.128 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)