Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Talk: Orion

Back to page
Revision as of 02:52, 10 November 2008 by Saphsaph (talk | contribs) (→‎Editorializing?)
Sign in to edit

Peer review (of sorts)

Ok, I changed the order of this article a bit, changed a few category headings, moved a few things, put somethings in sub-topics, I think it's a little more organized this way. Didn't change any information or writing tho, Gvsualan's work on this is impressive. Signed, Tyrant

I'm actually going to revert some of that you made a little and also regroup some of it to what I originally had, because your changes sort of disrupted the natural flow of the article and the intentional segways I had between most of the paragraphs and sections. --Gvsualan 23:23, 12 Jan 2005 (CET)

Ok, but as a student of sociology i really have to assume you mean society in the topic header "Physiology and Sociology" so i'm changing that one thing back. If it really bothers you, you can change it again I won't keep switching it, but physiology works to refer to the body, dispite meaning 'the study of' but sociology does not work in that context. Signed, TheTyrant

I referred to it as "sociology" because of its references to the behavior of female orions, in their society. Is that not sociology? --Gvsualan 02:23, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)

It's not really wrong persay, more awkward; having the title heading as sociology implies the article is about sociology or involves a study of society in a theoretical framework. That section of the article is about the society itself and does not involve any form of sociological analysis.

On another more humorous note, considering our conversation, if your article had 'physiology' and 'society' separated, the line "Orion females are very animal-like in nature, known for their extreme appetites and their innate skills" would actually create a classic 'nature-nurture' debate about this fictional species. Signed, Tyrant

No offense to the person who uploaded it, but do we really need a picture of an Orion from TAS? Could we move it to the last picture on the page?---Rebelstrike2005 20:49, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)

It was not my upload, but on the behalf of whoever did it, i'd like to say that I really like the TAS pics in articles that deal with info that crosses between TAS and other series. Seems well rounded. Tyrant 20:56, 16 Jan 2005 (CET)

I was thinking about adding a picture of the spy Thelev for purist reasons and historic importance (probably in Background or the Individuals section), but in retrospect, this might be a little superfluous. --AC84 04:20, 10 November 2006 (PST)

FA discussion

  • I would like to submit my own work on the Orions. --Gvsualan 08:09, 9 Jan 2005 (CET)

Orion Colony

It appears to me there has been some revisionism in regards to the Orions. I was watching 'Managerie' this evening when a few details caught my attention. When Pike dreams out loud about being an Orion trader he says, "I could go into business on the Orion COLONIES," (emphasis mine) which would seem to suggest (but not prove) that at the time the first pilot was written that the Orions traders were intended to be human. In the response to Pike's comment, the doctor refers to "green slave women." Notice that he doesn't say "green ORION slave women." In short, there's nothing in this conversation to indicate that Orions are aliens, or that green slave women are Orion females. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.111.160.

Editorializing?

Anyone else find this next paragraph a little too biased against Enterprise -- and ME in particular? :)

  • As the next series, Star Trek: Enterprise, was a prequel, the writers attempted to continually litter the series with references to The Original Series. As part of this attempt, writer Mike Sussman made Orion pirates the enemy species in an episode of Enterprise's third season entitled "Anomaly". However, their name was altered by other writers during rewrites of the episode's script to Osaarians. If Sussman had succeeded in adding the Original Series reference, the episode would have established that Orions were present in the Delphic Expanse, a dangerous area of space that ceased to exist at the end of the series' third season.

I would argue that we did not "continually litter" the series with TOS references -- hell, watch the first three seasons of the show, nary a TOS reference in sight. :P Seems to me a paragraph devoted to what ONLY appeared in an early draft of a script I wrote is not really relevant for this kind of article. Never mind that the writer seems to have something of a bias against my show... "if Sussman had succeeded..." Heaven forbid! :P That's ok, I have a bias in the other direction. But... I wanted to put it out there to you guys -- is this paragraph particularly insightful? Should it be part of a "featured article?" Whaddya think? --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Sussman that this paragraph is editorializing and should not be a part of any article, much less a featured one. 31dot 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I revised the section to remove any bias. – Cleanse 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I 100% agree...apologies to Mr. Sussman. (WOW! A pro on the board! :) )Capt Christopher Donovan 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's much improved, thanks, guys. I guess my only concern now is the line:

  • Had the Orion pirates appeared, the episode would have established that Orions were present in the Delphic Expanse, a dangerous area of space that ceased to exist at the end of the series' third season.

This suggests (at least to me) that my plans were to establish that the Orions came from a world inside the Expanse, which was never the case. It's stated quite clearly in the episode that the "pirates" Archer encountered were from outside the Expanse — they were trapped inside and had turned against their civilized natures in becoming marauders. How about this for a replacement...

  • Had the Orion pirates appeared, the episode would have established that the Orions were originally known as peaceful merchants who did not have a reputation for piracy as of the mid-22nd Century — it was their experiences in the Expanse that led them to adopt more aggressive, predatory policies when dealing with other species.

--Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good replacement. 31dot 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and altered the paragraph with something similar to what I wrote here. Thanks again. :) --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Asskissers :) --Alan 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me for asking, but why do we have, "Had the Orions appeared, the episode would have established that they were originally known as peaceful merchants in the mid-22nd Century – it was the hardships of life inside the Delphic Expanse that led some Orions to become more aggressive and predatory when dealing with other species." at all? Shouldn't the paragraph end with "Star Trek: Enterprise writer/producer Mike Sussman had hoped to show the origins of Orion privateers by making them the adversaries in the third season episode "Anomaly". However, during rewrites the species was changed to a new race, the Osaarians."?
It wasn't filmed, so it's not canon. It's like the whole nebula/excelsior USS_Melbourne all over again. In that article we stopped short of going on with effects and what it would've meant and stuck with facts "this is what happened, this is why". We don't say what it would've meant if it was Nebula and what it could mean to the future if there were two ships, since it wasn't filmed either way. In a future TOS episode that uses Orions, we can't say "If blah blah hadn't been rewritten it would mean that blah blah". We deal with "if"s? If people do insist on keeping it could we at least get some source or citation with expressed intent of a future plot-device/effect?
And Alan, it takes everything inside me to keep my inner fan from begging him to let me have his children *squeals* *hyperventilates* *takes a deep breath* *lets it out* *clears throat* ok yes... back to work... =) – Saphsaph 07:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The answer essentially is that in one case, the Orions, we have a production source saying what it would have meant, etc. We have Sussman. In the other, the Melbourne, we would have to speculate or commit original research. In addition, we are not violating the canon policy, as this isn't canon information. It is background. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess Sussman's edit itself is proof enough. But I'd appreciate the production source in case people want to check it out (like I do). I mean the source the first person who wrote the biased view.– Saphsaph 07:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A) It's not biased, it's just more information. B) The source is Sussman. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Trying to imagine a way to create a cite for this -- have Mr. Sussman write about himself in the third person and specify that it was submitted directly to this site from a verified production source?
  • Series producer Mike Sussman directly submitted to Memory Alpha that the original story outline said... ?
Or just mention it on the Osaarian page, which is really the only entry that would benefit from any of this information, without using third person, be it Sussman or MA third person. --Alan 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ahh! No no no, you guys misunderstood me. I meant the person who initially wrote the paragraph that Sussman found biased. He must've had some source for his biased entry as he couldn't have written the background information on information provided here after he had written it. I was wondering what the source was, because I want to read more on it. Did Sussman say all this stuff somewhere else before here? Do I make more sense now? – Saphsaph 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References to "The Cage" and "Borderland" regarding males as slaves?

I don't think the reference to "The Cage" and "Borderland" are accurate when referring to males as the slaves and the females as the masters (or mistresses). If I recall correctly these items were only brought up in "Bound".– Capt. Jeff Pierce aka Brad Hathaway 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The references to "Borderland" and "The Cage" are to cite the note that "the Orions maintain the façade that the females are the slaves. This is commonly done by selling Orion females on the Orion slave market." --From Andoria with Love 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to step on anyone's toes, but Orion females, their pheremones and the "facade" was only mentioned in "Bound" and contradict with Orion physiology in "In A Mirror Darkly", "The Cage" and "Whom Gods Destroy". While I agree that "Bound" should be listed here, unfortunately it is one of those things that doesn't quite mesh with the rest of established Trek history regarding this race.– Capt. Jeff Pierce 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an entry similar to what is stated about the mirror universe could be applied by the time of TOS as Orion females in "The Cage" and "Whom Gods Destroy" also do not appear to have this ability but rather use seduction as a means of enticing males. Suggest, "Presumably a defense against the Orion females' pheromones, or the ability to produce the pheromones was lost by the 23rd century".– Capt. Jeff Pierce 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue skin?

Orions are known for their distinctive green or blue skin.

Where was there blue skined orions? --From TrekkyStar Peace and Long Life 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See the picture of the animated blue-skinned Orion in the article? That should tell you. :) (specifically: TAS: "The Pirates of Orion") --From Andoria with Love 02:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They're not really blue, the eye pieces were blue, the orions were more of an aquamarineish-grey. --Alan 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement