Jump to content

Talk:Galaxy Quest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.215.20.28 (talk) at 09:01, 24 July 2008 (→Is Galaxy Quest a time travel movie?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Nesmeth"

I may be wrong on the connection, but Tim Allen's character was named "Jason Nesmeth." In Toy Story, when Allen's character Buzz Lightyear realizes that he is a toy, he ends up in a tea party with some dolls. When Woody finds him, Buzz proclaims: "I am Mrs. Nesmeth! See the hat?" I'm adding it, but if I am wrong, please remove it.

Damn, I wish I picked that up. Nice find. My guess is Tim Allen probably made the name up for the captain role, Nesmeth being his choice for favorite made up name (either he also made up the name for Toy Story, or he really liked the name that the Toy Story writers came up with). I don't see how the 2 Nesmeth's would be unrelated and just coincidance, Nesmeth being an uncommon name. I also don't see the Galaxy Quest writers choosing the name from Toy Story, without some form of input from Tim Allen. Rewt241
The name in Toy Story is Nesbitt, not Nesmith. See the Talk entry below. Jordan Brown 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium sphere's purpose

I love this movie (to the extent that we made thermion outfits for a fancy dress once :). I've always pondered what the beryllium sphere was actually for. Reading around, a number of possibilities for this are:

The reason I wonder is mainly because beryllium is an unusual material and is very toxic to handle, so they NSEA designers must have had some special reasons for such an exotic material. The fact that an alien race produced a suitable replacement indicates it is practically a commodity in spacefaring communities. Is there any data connecting the performance of beryllium spheres with that of transparent aluminium? njh 10:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always saw the beryllium sphere as a counterpart to Star Trek's dilithium crystals. -- Hawaiian717 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the answer... the Beryllium sphere (drum roll) is for a Plot device! It's a movie, people. TheHYPO 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly, I think TheHYPO has got it!
Atlant 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Galaxy Quest a time travel movie?

Although I've seen Galaxy Quest some three or four times, I must have missed the time travel aspect to it. Would anyone mind if I removed Galaxy Quest from the category on time travel movies? Can someone refresh my memory about the time travel aspect to this film?

It's near the very end, they jump back in time a whole 13 seconds, if I remember correctly. (EmiOfBrie 17:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Commander Peter Quincy Taggart: Activate the Omega 13.
Atlant 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough time to correct a single mistake. njh 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a time travel film in a way, but technically it isn't: the omega 13 reorders the matter in the universe to a previous state, so no real time trivel is involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.81.16 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're arguing the technicalities of a device based off of a fictional device shown on a fictional television show in a fictional world meant to parody a piece of science fiction. NOW WE'RE TRUE QUESTARIANS66.215.20.28 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

I think it's better to have the section in which the Star Trek actors talk about Galaxy Quest named something along the lines of Reaction From Star Trek Regulars. I think it makes it a bit clearer what the section is for.
JesseG 06:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The film pokes fun at both Star Trek, and the whole Star Trek following / cult, but actually pays a lot of respect to both while still being funny. The "straight" story (as if it was really an episode of Galaxy Quest) was good in and of itself. However, they really triumph when the actors get "in character" and pull together, though none of it would have been possible with the fanbase that is obsessed with the details of the world of Galaxy Quest. The world of science fiction fantasy was made real by both the combination of the actors and the fans (and of course, the producers, writers, etc.). Essentially, skills like using the digital conveyor worked because the actor created the movements needed, as did the controls for the ship. But the skills of the fans made it possible for them to get to the right locations and perform the right sequences of moves.

The Thermians/Mathesar/Enrico Colantoni

IMHO, this otherwise fine article is sadly deficient due to the complete lack of any reference to Enrico Colantoni's amazing performance as the Thermian leader Mathesar, probably the best piece of acting in the movie (at the very least, he ties with Allen for Best in Show). Obviously, showering praise on Colantoni would violate NPOV, but he needs to be in there for the article to be really complete. The fact that his character's name is clearly a shout-out to Richard Matheson would seem to provide a decent excuse to mention him in the article. I may add something myself, but if anyone else wants to do the honors (since I may not get around to it for a bit) they should feel free to do so.Andrewjnyc 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV?

I read the article and it really doesn't seem NPOV, hence the tag there now. With lines like "The tiny details that the prop department came up with are amazing."(See Trivia for that line) through out, does anyone else think some things should be edited?4.136.159.166 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge of NSEA Protector

I have suggested the merge of that article into this one. Basically that article is a collection of:

  • a linking of what the ship is and that it's from this film
  • two unproven theories ("the Protector's registration number...ostensibly alludes to some sort of similar space federation", "...believed to stand for Not The Enterprise."
  • an uncited fact ("The shape of the ship is based on the combadges...in Star Trek: The Next Generation.")
  • some meager statistics.
  • a picture.

I submit that the actual legitimate contents of this article, if they are worth more than a trivia section mention in this article, could easily go in a Protector subsection of this article. TheHYPO

Plot

The plot needs to include more than just the beginning and middle, it should include the end.

Irwin Allen rock and roll

I removed this name for a technique for simulating an explosion's effect. I really like it, but I can't find any mention of it. --Kizor 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search[1] and found a couple of sources that seem to back up the name.[2][3] (use your browser's "find" feature and tell it to look for "rock" on those pages) EVula 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an egg on my face, then. Thank you for the sources. --Kizor 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah!

Parody?

Do the people who wrote this actually know what a parody is!?

bah.

Blue Spider 08:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Galaxy Quest TV series is a parody of Star Trek; I don't see what the problem is. Oh, and new comment go at the top. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

Quellek death scene

Added "Quellek death scene" reference to the references section. I'm suprised I'm the only one that picked that up. Except for the wording the scene plays very closely to the DS9 episode. The overall concept is identical, even the camera shots and how the actors are positioned to each other. The characters (Odo-Lazarus, Quellek-Weyoun) are also close in appearance. Rewt241

Checking the dates, the DS9 episode aired before the script was written. DS9 being the only Star Trek series airing at the time, I would guess the writers were watching it for research/material purposes. Rewt241

Uncensored version?

I could have sworn the first time I saw the movie (on Canadian stations CityTV or Space) Weaver's "Fuck that!" wasn't censored. It really stood out to me when I heard it changed to "Screw that!" while watching it on American stations like TBS. It seems that the Region 1 DVD also contains this edit, but is this true of other releases world wide? Merc 2k 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction quotes section to WikiQuotes?

Seems to me that the "reaction quotes" section belongs in WikiQuotes, with a summary (they liked it) here.

Thoughts?

Jordan Brown 20:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boobs vs Breasts

I understand the general desire to avoid, um, informal wording, but the actual quote from the movie uses "boobs" and so it doesn't seem inappropriate here. Perhaps it should be in the form of a quote, e.g.:

Like them, she also wears a highly form-fitting uniform (she complains that her TV Guide interview consisted of "six paragraphs about my boobs and how they fit into my suit").

"breasts" seems too clinical here.

Jordan Brown 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the quotes uses "boobs", then it shouldn't be changed. Informal language is to be avoided in the article, not quotes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference removal

i removed the reference about toy story because the name was incorrect, buzz thinks his name is mrs nesbitt, not mrs nesmith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.63.76 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Jordan Brown 08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked the DVD and indeed the name in Toy Story is Nesbitt, not Nesmith. In addition, even if the names matched the connection is tenuous enough that without a citable reference it's WP:OR. Jordan Brown 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Di Marco's Bra reference

Under the References to Star Trek section there is a reference made to Di Marco accidentally gets her shirt unbuttoned, exposing her bra as parodying the unnecessary and flagrant use of sex appeal in action scenes in Star Trek, however the deleted scenes clearly show her "undoing" her top to distract an aliens and instructing the computer to close the doors, thereby killing them. Not really "accidental" at all. This does question having the reference in that section as it's not parodying anything, The reason her bra was exposed is due to the scene being cut from the movie and the scene thereafter has her blouse open due to continuity reasons. Bain (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction reference?

"The plot also echoes a fan fiction story published in the 1980s (Star Trek: The New Voyages) where the plot device includes a misadventure of the Star Trek-series actors (Shatner, Nimoy, and Nichols) when they are inadvertently beamed into the real U.S.S. Enterprise -- exchanging places with the 'real' Kirk, Spock and Uhura who are simultaneously transported to the set of the Star Trek series."

Is this a well-known piece of fan fiction? If not, why is it mentioned here? Did its author edit this page? (And even if it is well-known, what's the contention--that GQ "stole" the story?) To say nothing of the fact that what's described here ISN'T actually that similar to GQ's plot. A fictional crew trading places with their real-life counterparts is different from actors being mistaken for the genuine article and being transported into a world similar to the one their characters inhabit. And of course GQ's plot only follows the fish out of water reversal in one direction; there's no "flip side" where the real crew is transported into the artificial world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This may refer to Star Trek: The New Voyages and its sequel. I dimly remember reading one of those a million years ago, but don't have it now so I can't check. However, it's the right name, roughly the right timeframe, and those books are compilations of fan fiction. Jordan Brown 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison to the fiction is a huge stretch... If anything Galaxy Quest is a classic "fish out of water" story, which would make it much more like "Three Amigo's" and ever more so like "The Adventures of Captain Zoom in Outer Space" I suggest it be remove. Questarian (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed, along with every other unverified reference. I posted a LONG list of reliable sources available on the web so we can repopulate the list with cited allusions to star trek. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus quote

I believe it's Grabthar's hammer, not Gramthar's hammer, but I don't have time right now to check the DVD. Jordan Brown 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm it is "by Grabthar's Hammer" ....what a savings. :) Enigma3542002 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon

I don't think that Robert Gordon was a writer on this film, as it says in the article, or else the link is wrong.

The Other Dave Howard

Currently the link for Dave Howard's name leads to an article on a baseball player.

Possibly, that is a different person.

Ordinary Person 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to improve the article

I think it is possible that the trivia section, elements of it can be converted into a 'development' or 'production' section. Similar things have been done to other film articles. Enigma3542002 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference or Coincidence?

I'm seeing what appears to be a fair amount of coincidental information in the References to Star Trek and other shows and trivia sections. For example:

  • In 1998, actor Peter Jurasik (famous for playing Londo Mollari on the science fiction show Babylon 5) wrote Diplomatic Act with William H. Keith, Jr. It is a science fiction novel where the lead character, an actor in a science fiction show, is kidnapped by aliens who think him to actually be his character from the program. The book is similar in tone and story to Galaxy Quest, which was released one year later.
  • The Thermians take the Galaxy Quest TV show as the basis for their entire society, as in the TOS episode, "A Piece of the Action," where aliens copy gangland Chicago after a book describing it is accidentally left behind, and the TNG episode "The Royale" where aliens construct a false reality based on a casino-themed novel for an astronaut whom they accidentally stranded on their planet.
  • etc

I'll start cleaning this up soon. Just a heads up. Gh5046 05:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'T-Race'

It seems to me that almost every species mentioned begins with the letter T and, at least most, end in '-ian' parodying the apparently accidental predilection of the Star Trek writers to do the very same. Would someone like to verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.109.145 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Vulcan, Romulan, Telarite, Klingon? Only -ian race I can think of is Tholian.Olivertownshend (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Andorian. And others. —WWoods (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega 13?

i was watching the movie and measured the amount of time after the Protector exits the black hole to the activation of the Omega 13 device. The time is way more than 13 seconds...someone please confirm. I want to know if i should add this to the article. Thanks Matthew 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

they stretched the time out in editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In real-time (our perspective), the scene lasted 1 minute and 6 seconds from the time Sarris fired the first shot to the time Jason hit the Omega 13 switch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CookyMonzta (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More movie math, obviously. Matthew is now MysteryMan (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Star Trek Reference

Just a thought, but when the actor who plays the alien is down on the surface, he holds his little "tricorder" device upside down for a few moments. Could this possibly be reference to the actors who actually did this in the Star Trek Show, on accident. It was mostly extras or people who didn't use a tricorder. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are TNG "Silicon Avatar" and DS9 "Starship Down." Is this an actual connection, or am I just looking for one... --Nmajmani (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely coincidental, unless in the DVD commentary, or some other source from a director/write/actor, indicates otherwise. Gh5046 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to Star Trek and other shows section

There is no need for this section to point out every single reference to Star Trek, etc.; this isn't a fansite. It's pretty obvious that this film is full of such references. Most of the section can go, particularly the ones that speculate on links to various episodes/movies (the rock monster stuff being an example), with no sources at all.--Drat (Talk) 11:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree. While it's clear that GQ is ripe with Trek references, it's referencing many other earlier TV Sci-Fi show... For example, just rewatch both seasons of the Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series). The real issue here is that the "references" are purely speculative, and as such be removed. Questarian (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: The only legitimate reference to Star Trek is the one about the meaning of "NTE", the rest are still purely speculative. The attribution for "Unnecessary Combat Roll" only goes describes the action and does not provided any direct connections to what film creators were intending. While it is clear that GQ was playing tribute to Trek, unless there is something tying them directly back to Galaxy Quest, such as by statement from cast or crew, they could just as easily be attributed to any number of other sci-fi/action series. These are, more properly, references to general sci-fi series cliches. Questarian (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below on the talk page. Lots of articles claiming just that. I also don't own the DVD commentary, but that may serve as a possible source. I'm SURE the creators (if they went so far as to admit they borrowed the rifles from fifth element) commented about trek there. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, they never released a commentary track for Galaxy Quest. Very early on in production, I'm pretty sure I read an interview with someone high up in the production alluding to Star Trek references in the film, but I haven't seen it again in at least 7 years. After a certain point prior to the film release, likely for legal or professional relationship reasons, everyone directly involved would, whenever the "Trek" question came up, state categorically that "Galaxy Quest is not a parody of Star Trek."... That I'm fairly certain I can still find a number of direct quotes for. Unless there is something tying it back to someone actually involved with the production film, regardless of how obvious it may seem or how many people point it out, it's still meanly supposition... There a lot of elements in GQ that I can attribute just as easily, and with "examples", to "Buck Rogers" or "Space: 1999" Questarian (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the sources below (quite voluminous) remove the need to do our own interpretation. I have only posted them (rather than edit the article with them) because I don't feel comfortable editing and remaking an extant article about a film. I mostly do small articles (bios and such) that I start. I figure someone who loves the film more than I do and wants to dig in will use them. If the article stays like it is for too long I may wade back in. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to spend some time looking them over, but so far these appear to just be the options and conclusions of the authors, rather then anything definitive from someone that was actually involved in the production of Galaxy Quest. Yes, Galaxy Quest parodied elements of Star Trek, and other series, but the problem is attributing anything in the film to a particular source, such as Star Trek, unless confirmation it is coming from someone that was actually involved. Questarian (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case at all. Very little of this is deep textual analysis (well, except for the From Méliès to Galaxy Quest: The Dark Matter of the Popular Imagination link), so we are not ascribing some deep fruedian urge to the creators in order to explain the shape of the protector. Absent information from the creators, expert sourcing is the proper route to travel. If we come to the conclusion that a source listed below is unreliable (totally possible), then we can exclude it. But by and large, if we read "Living with Star Trek" p 148 and find that the author asserts a parallel between Nesmith and Shatner, we don't need confirmation from the producers in order to post it. I would much rather include an explicit admission by the director/writer to this rather obvious parallel but I don't think it is an exceptional claim. Likewise with most other parallels. I refuse to allow them in the article without sourcing, but most of them are pretty reasonable. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To call something a "Star Trek Reference" is to infer that there exists an intentional parallel. Unless it's explicitly stated as the intent by someone actually involved in the creation of the work, any perceived similarities, regardless of how well thought out, are irrelevant. Unless the authors have direct knowledge, or have interviewed those that do, they can not speak as to what the creator's actual intent was, they can only speculate and derive their own meanings... not fact. Calling them references to Star Trek is wholly inaccurate as they do not have a factual basis, and at best should be termed "Similarities to Star Trek." Questarian (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the case. An example. We have VERY little information about or from William Shakespeare apart from plays and sonnets. No corpus of letters, no contemporary biographer. All we have to go on are inferences. However, it is not a controversial claim that allusions filled his works. We may find in A Midsummer Night's Dream Oberon's instructions to Puck about where to find Cupid's arrow. Experts had surmised that shakespeare was referring to a festival in his youth where the queen was entertained. The thinnest of justifications, but the assertion is made.
If we worry about asserting intent where you claim there is none, then we may state things as quotations. We can say "so and so asserts that Galaxy Quest is an homage to star trek". Or "Bob, in his book How Galaxy quest is just like star trek, claims that the convention-goers were modeled after trekkies". Etc. We don't need to assert intent at any stage. I don't think Galaxy Quest is a slavish parody. When you say that parallels exist between GC and older sci-fi films (and tropes common to the genre), I believe you. Some of the similarities between GC and Star Trak are because they draw from the same archetypal well (the first source below points that out pretty well). But (IMO), some of the similarities were deliberate. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I not trying to say the "references" aren't there, it's that I believe it's important to separate what is factually and attributable, from what, as with you Shakespeare example, has been merely "surmised."... regardless of how expert the opinion, it remain an opinion. We know as fact that Galaxy Quest play homage to "Star Trek" because the story's creator and screenplay writer David Howard has stated it so(that quote exists), but here are also statements out in the ether that Galaxy Quest was influenced by other series in the sci-fi genre as well. The issue is not if or whether elements of Galaxy Quest are referent to Star Trek, it is whether what has been as claimed as such can documented. Again, categorizing them as "Reference to Star Trek" implies that they are know to be the intent of works creators. In the current list only one item, the "NTE" reference, can be linked to an actual statement of intent from someone directly involved with the work. The other items are, regardless of however probable, only possible references and as such the should be categorized differently. Questarian (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) I see where you are coming from. We can retitled the section "similarities to star trek" and discuss avowed parallels with surmised connections separately. We can also (as the sourcing supports it) discuss influences on GC form things that aren't star trek. But I think when treating this issue, we need to be careful not to let the creators' points of view overshadow the issue. If every major review and literary appraisal of this movie connects it intimately to star trek, then this might be an Alice in Wonderland problem. The author (Carroll) disavowed ANY subtext or allusion in his works multiple times, calling them nonsense and childrens' riddles. But the connections are there. We should report on secondary sources who make those claims even over the objection of the creators. The producers of GC might have had many reasons to disclaim a connection to star wars. Maybe they didn't want to seem like a derivative work. Maybe they wanted to assert the film on its own. Maybe there were (as you suggested) legal reasons. We can't speculate in the article about that but we can do it here. Nevertheless, you are completely right in saying we should avoid depicting these suggested allusions as intended by the film-makers. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, Oh, about the shape of the Protector: Somewhere out there there's a GQ effects article were a model maker says, and I'm not sure if he was was kidding or not, that the shape of the Protector is based on a toilet seat... which when you look it makes a lot of sense... But it can't be called a fact until I find the builders quote. Questarian (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the aspect ratio change be restored on Blu-Ray?

Having only seen the film on video and DVD, I was unaware of the aspect ratio change that could be seen in theaters and I'm now wondering if it'll be restored for a possible future Blu-Ray release. (HD-DVD too if the format hadn't died.) While the article indicates it's not present on DVD, should it note that it may exist if and when it's available on Blu-Ray, or should we just wait and see? According to my search, Galaxy Quest was released to HD D-VHS some time ago and has been shown on Cinemax in HD. Was the aspect ratio change restored for either of those presentations? Should the article note those presentations? And what about future HD VOD, such as via the iTunes Store? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.119.181 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and improvement

Ok. Those memory-alpha sources need to go. Here as some available RS for Galaxy quests:

  1. Living with Star Trek: American Culture and the Star Trek Universe, Ch. 9
  2. Why There are Always Ducts: Parody and Fandom in Galaxy Quest
  3. From Méliès to Galaxy Quest: The Dark Matter of the Popular Imagination
  4. Human Computer Interaction in Science Fiction Movies
  5. Under the Waterfall: A fanfiction community’s analysis of their self-representation and peer review
  6. Cult Television
  7. From Alien to the Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film
  8. Genre Studies in Mass Media: A Handbook
  9. Global Scriptwriting
  10. American Science Fiction Tv: Star Trek, Stargate and Beyond

that's without using movie reviews. Plenty of printed sources there. We can also start combing the web for reviews to substantiate some of the 'cast' allusions to star trek. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha links are gone. See edit summaries for details.Protonk (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

I know this isn't a general forum for talk about the subject, but that poster reminds me of what is so frustrating about hollywood. If you REALLY want a taste of what is so wrong with that place, watch a trailer of the Kevin Spacey Film Swimming with Sharks, then watch the film. Tell me what was wrong. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawny Madison's "job"?

"Sigourney Weaver as Gwen DeMarco / Lieutenant Tawny Madison: The Computer Officer of the Protector and performs communications duties. Her job consists largely of communicating with the ship's computer, which no other crewmember can do."

Seriously? The whole joke was that all she ever did on the TV show was repeat exactly what the computer said, she had no real function. JDS2005 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She also had to tell the computer what to do; it wouldn't listen to Nesmeth. 99.231.212.211 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galaxy_Quest&oldid=227591076"