Talk:Zefram Cochrane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
I have removed the phrase "it is unknown whether the Terran empire exists at this point" because it isn't: if you watch the opening credits, there is a shot of the first Moon landing of this universe, with the Terran Empire flag being raised instead of the American one, and this is clearly the mirror universe analogue of Apollo. Alex Swanson 10:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It's never stated whether other cultures developed warp drive or another faster than light propulsion system; I'm pretty sure all we know is that Zefram developed warp drive indepednently on Earth. His prominence might then be due both to his specific insight about warp travel and Earth's prominence in the future UFP. I've updated this in the opening paragraphs. Ryanluck 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously the Vulcans had it long before humans (see Star Trek: First Contact) but other civilizations seem to develop it independently (see First Contact (TNG episode)). Additionally, this goes with the Federation concept of non-interference (i.e. The Prime Directive). - zjc
I've always been of the opionion that "warp" and "faster than light" (FTL) were not synonymous. Warp technology is a subset of FTL technology. Thus what the Vulcans were interested in was FTL, not necessarily warp. I'm updating this throughout the entry. If someone disagrees I'd be glad to start a dialogue about it. Ryanluck 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is probably assumed that the only way to get around the speed of light, besides wormholes, is via some sort of warp/subspace technology - warp drive, warp waves (failed, from an episode of ST:TNG) and Borg subspace conduits. Warp is considered FTL in that you can get to a destination faster than light, though it's supposed to circumvent the speed of light (globally faster than light, but not locally). - zjc
I saw only 1 or 2 episodes of Enterprise -- I suppose I'm a "Basher" in the internet parlance. I was against the idea of a prequel and do not consider anything that happens in it part of the official Chronology. Apparently Zefram Cochrane makes an appearance in that series. Perhaps Enterprise also addresses what I've written here. If so then it's fine to include it, but please make a note that it's from Enterprise since that show carries such controversy for otherwise devoted Trekkies. Ryanluck 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the only appearance of the Cochrane character in ST:Ent was in a recording of a speech he gave a hundred years or so prior to the episode (either the first or last episode of the series, I can't remember). It wasn't a great series, but I'd still consider it canon. - zjc
I may be wrong but didn't Q once use the term "star trek", in TNG in the episode "All Good Things..."? According to this the only character to do this is Cochrane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.65.151 (talk • contribs) .
=I think he said the Q would "put an end to your little Trek through the stars." So kinda, but not quite. Ryanluck 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't one of the characters (I forget which) say "star trek" at the end of the Roswell episode of DS9? TharkunColl 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] First to mention Star Trek?
In Star Trek: First Contact, Cochrane becomes the first and (to date) only character in the history of the franchise to actually utter the term "star trek".
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't someone in "Voage Home" mention something about being in some kind of Star Trek? --StarkRG 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. But you've given me a good excuse to watch Star Trek IV again! I'll let you know what I find. Ryanluck 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
They did "break the fourth wall" in Star Trek IV, when McCoy is trying to get Spock to talk about what it was like to be dead: "You really have gone where no man's gone before!" At the time the movie was made, I don't believe that phrase existed anywhere except in William Shatner's opening narration of TOS. Since then, however, it has become canon because (I think) Zefram Cochrane said it in the pilot episode of "Enterprise." Also, I think in Star Trek V they show a ship's plaque that has those words on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.151.241 (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Interesting...
Cochrane, Alberta is a town not too far from the legendary Vulcan, Alberta. Coincidence? T ConX 13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cochran not Cochrane
If you check the credits from Star Trek: First Contact, his name is spelled Zefram Cochran, not Zefram Cochrane. I've tried to clean it up on his main page, but it needs to be fixed throughout Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.214.110 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps every other source spells it with an "e" and the FC credits are wrong. Please check the episode credits, script, etc., before making such sweeping changes. You may be right, but you gave only one source, and the ST films have been known to bbe wrong. Hell, the main character of Uhura was credited incorrectly in one of the films ("The Undiscovered Country") as Uhuru. Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, spells it Cochrane. I would hope the Fans would be able to get it right over there. Sir Rhosis 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I have just done this work for you. Gene Coon's April 19, 1967 script spells it "Cochrane," the "Metamorphosis" credits spell it "Cochrane." Safe to say, this is the correct spelling and "First Contact" got it wrong. Please revert back to the spelling with an "e." Sir Rhosis 10:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mention on Heroes
In the series Heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29 ), in the first season, episode 17 "Company Man" two of the characters visits "Bozeman, Montana" - given that George Takei has a guest role on the show and we've previously seen a license plate "NCC 1701" this is hardly a coincidence.
[edit] Ship name
I believe the name of Cochrane's first warp ship in the novel Federation was "Bonaventure" not "Phoenix". Can someone, please, confirm or deny? I have not read the novel in years. Chronolegion 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GlennCorbett.jpg
Image:GlennCorbett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About link to novel Federation
Memory Alpha should definitely have an article on this, but I don't know about Wikipedia. It probably would wind up being deletionist bait. It's hard enough to argue for articles on certain important recurring characters, so we should show some restraint and pick our battles. For these reasons, I don't think this article should have a link to an article about the novel (though perhaps a link to Memory Alpha in the external links might be in order). ShutterBugTrekker 22:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with excising the Federation thing entirely -- I keep reverting your edit because "This is a book so it's not canon" is not non-NPOV. Might just be best to axe that part as extraneous detail. --EEMeltonIV 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a extraneuos detail, its the truth. Novels are not canon, maybe whit the exception of Jeri Taylor's. I hav no opinion on wheter their should be an article about Federation but i will note that there seem to be no takers (e.g., redlink). Numerao 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The notion of "canon" is itself non-NPOV -- Paramount has its policy, the people at, say, Memory Beta have their own, and then there's the group of people who believe that anything Gene Roddenberry didn't personally snuggle with is non-canon. By putting up a caveat that says something is not canon, it's essentially saying, "Here, this thing has been published, but it really doesn't mean anything." Rather than make an assertion as to a piece of fiction's canon-ness, I think it's best simply to say, "This has been published in a book" and let Wikipedia's readers make their own decision as to how much weight to give it. --EEMeltonIV 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- Actually, you make an excellent point about Gene Roddenberry. He didn't consider Star Trek V canon and many fans don't either because he didn't. ShutterBugTrekker 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- The notion of "canon" is itself non-NPOV -- Paramount has its policy, the people at, say, Memory Beta have their own, and then there's the group of people who believe that anything Gene Roddenberry didn't personally snuggle with is non-canon. By putting up a caveat that says something is not canon, it's essentially saying, "Here, this thing has been published, but it really doesn't mean anything." Rather than make an assertion as to a piece of fiction's canon-ness, I think it's best simply to say, "This has been published in a book" and let Wikipedia's readers make their own decision as to how much weight to give it. --EEMeltonIV 03:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a extraneuos detail, its the truth. Novels are not canon, maybe whit the exception of Jeri Taylor's. I hav no opinion on wheter their should be an article about Federation but i will note that there seem to be no takers (e.g., redlink). Numerao 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GlennCorbett.jpg
Image:GlennCorbett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Should be brought back
I was wondering why the entire section describing (and pointing out discrepancies and inconsistencies left unexplained in the fictional timeline) how the character was conceived originally in the 1960s (for the Original Series), and then completely reconstructed in the 1990s (notably for the feature film with Cromwell in the role), was removed altogether. That was the one part of the article based on real-life and on technical aspects of character development in long-running franchises. Now the article is almost exclusively a fictional biography. Not that we can't have a fictional biography in an article about a fictional person, of course, but it is always best if we can add something more to the article.
It seems that the whole thing was removed last June 9, unilaterally by a user, based on his own understanding of whether or not that should be here, without any discussion here or any attempt at rewording the section (should that have been what was necessary to improve the standard). I would say that we need to bring that back — and rewording is always part of the equation; Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all. Redux (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this in reference to the NOTE: section? If so, someone seems to be stretching what information there is on screen to describe something confusing, that the character is originally from Earth or Alpha Centauri. A character suggests onscreen that Zephram Cochrane was, at one time, living in the Alpha Centauri system, a movie shows that he was living on Earth before humans were able to travel faster than light, so we should just leave the facts as they are Alastairward (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question about his name
I wonder about the possibility, if the name Zefram Cochrane may have any connection to "Josephine Cochrane", who showed in 1893 her invention: the worlds first automatic dishwashing machine (which contented less "warp", but instead an intense "whooosh"-Sound). This shouldn't disappoint anyone - i just ask for myself, if such an implication might be possible ... ... especially as the name "Zefram" really sounds like a modification of josephine (if the "jo" at the beginnig would be cut ...
Chiron 88.217.5.159 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
