Talk:Zefram Cochrane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mirror Universe[edit]

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
Indented line

Actually, First Contact presents direct evidence that at least two other species from independent star systems had developed Warp Capabilities prior to Zephram- can you guess which? ...The Borg (whom may have actually assimilated several other Warp Capable species), and there's one more for sure- Which I bet some of you still might not guess; Not even if I were speaking Klingon right now ::wink:: LarchOye (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The artical states that the creation of the empire started with the terrans inventing warp, although it was created during a point long before than. I will correct it after writing this PS: it was the first episode that had Cochrane's recording Drlf (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no source that the Terran Empire was created before that. The Terran Empire is an interstellar empire, so how could it have been created prior to their possession of warp drive?

As for the moon landing, that could simply have been a mistake on the part of the creators, or perhaps the Terran Empire took the former flag of an Earth Flag that existed prior to it. Whichever explanation one prefers, this is SYNTH, and is therefore not permitted. I rewrote the passage to remove any assumption either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of phrase "Star Trek"[edit]

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)
No, but the nurse referenced a future organization of planets with some word like "association", and Quark corrected her by saying, "Federation". Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heteronormative?[edit]

The comment about heteronormativity is somewhat puzzling. It says that cochrane shows disgust at the sexualized relationship. Is this implying that Cochrane is gay and that, once he sees the Companion as female he is disgusted? Or is it implying that Cochrane is heterosexual and disgusted by the idea of the sexual interests of another species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. That section came completely out of left field, regardless of the citation (which I assume is dubious, but cannot check since it is an offline citation). What is meant by the section and what it is meant to accomplish is beyond me, and since I'm not the first to take issue with it, I'll go ahead and remove it to avoid further confusion. 99.186.122.139 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Spectralancer
You can't just remove valid, sourced material because you dislike it or don't understand it "regardless of the citation". Unless you can determine that the source is not reliable, or does not support that material, or provide some other policy-based rationale for its removal, it is not appropriate to do so. And please sign your posts. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am signing my posts; I assume you refer to the OP? I managed to find a copy of the source online, and now I can safely say I understand it. Still, it has absolutely no relation to the episode; if it does, then so does every other instance in entertainment where people are assumed to be straight or gender stereotypes are upheld. Whether or not one finds that acceptable is irrelevant; that's just how it usually is today, and always was during TOS' time. There's nothing particularly outstanding about Zefram's thoughts which are the basis of the source; he's obviously a straight character- so what? TOS, being made in the 60s, played up gender stereotypes heavily. This is common knowledge and singling this particular instance out is unnecessary. My advice to whoever posted this section is to create an article about gender stereotyping in TOS in general, if there isn't one already. EDIT: After viewing your profile, I see that you are an avid Trekker, too, which leads me to believe you know of the general campiness and gender stereotyping of TOS, so I don't see why you would find this particularly relevant. I'm going to remove this again and I ask that you not replace until you can prove not that it is legitimate, but that it has relevance whereas countless other similar instances in the TOS do not. 99.186.122.139 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Spectralancer
Regarding signatures, I was addressing the editor who posted above you. Regarding that online copy of the source, can you provide a link to it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes; http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC42folder/StarTrekGender.html The argument begins with Kirk saying "The ideas of male and female are universal constants," and goes on to describe the interaction between Cochrane and The Companion as gender stereotyping. My rationale for deletion is that, as I have said, TOS was produced in the 60s and is accordingly chock full of gender stereotypes. It is nonsensical to call out an isolated instance amidst the flurry of others that permeate TOS. See for yourself. 99.186.122.139 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Spectralancer

First to mention Star Trek?[edit]

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)

Interesting...[edit]

Cochrane, Alberta is a town not too far from the legendary Vulcan, Alberta. Coincidence? T ConX 13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cochran not Cochrane[edit]

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)

Mention on Heroes[edit]

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.

....Hi! Well, the vanity plate makes sense in the context of the characters being fans of the "Star Trek" franchise. Heck, the actor that played "Hiro", even his character on "Hawaii 5-O" is one! Now if you really want to read something paradoxical, see "Group 10" at this site: http://www.poobala.com/crossoverlistb.html#byreality LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ship name[edit]

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)

It was, yes. Federation and First Contact don't really fit together at all. Daibhid C (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GlennCorbett.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

About link to novel Federation[edit]

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)
My opinion is for the deletion of the Federation novel reference. If everything non-canon were to be introduced on Wikipedia the servers would catch on fire. Deletion is pending. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GlennCorbett.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

Should be brought back[edit]

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)

Question about his name[edit]

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) .... Hmm. I didn't know about that woman until now. But as to your question, why not? Gene Roddenberry stated that Christine Chapel's name is a pun of "Sistine Chapel". LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's infinitely more likely that it's a reference to Jacqueline Cochran, the first woman to fly faster than the speed of sound. 50.47.93.196 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Cochrane and Woman incorrectly labeled[edit]

The wording underneath the picture (showing Cochrane and the Commissioner) states "Glenn Corbett as Cochrane with the Companion in the 1967 Star Trek episode "Metamorphosis"." Either picture needs to change -- there is a scene in the episode where Cochrane IS with the companion, or the caption needs to change to say "... as Cochrane and Nancy Hedford as the Federation Commissioner in the ..."

This picture is identical to the one used on the main episode page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jholicky (talkcontribs) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in that scene the Companion was in the Commissioner's body as they had already merged. 66.87.4.44 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Human acquisition of warp drive in the Mirror Universe[edit]

In the Mirror Universe, rather than reciprocating the Vulcans' peaceful greeting, Cochrane and the other humans kill the Vulcans and loot their ship, leading to human acquisition of warp drive, (...)

I don't think that this conclusion is correct. As the Vulcans in the Mirror Universe were no different from their counterparts in our universe there would have been no reason for them to visit Earth in the first place.217.94.204.168 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)