Gambling in Science Fiction

I read tons of sicence fiction, and I've watched many SF shows as well. Sometimes gambling comes up, usually all wrong. Here are some bits that stick in my mind:

1) Babylon 5. In the very first episode, the arrival of the station's "commercial" telepath is seized on to provide a tour of the station. One place mentioned is the casino. The commander tells the telepath she can go into the casino, but she's barred by law from playing.

At the time I thought nothing of it, but now I'm saying to myself "Huh?" It's established the telepath, and others like her, can read minds. I can see then they shoulnd't be allowed to play poker against toher gamblers, as they'd ahve an unfair advantage. they'd always know what cards the others held, whoc's blufing and who isn't. But most any other game gives a telepath no particular advantage. A roulette ball will be as random for her as for me, ditto a BJ deck or even a shoe.

2) Star Trek Deep Space Nine. In an episode where Dr. Bashir is playing a James Bond type secret agent in the holodeck (funny quip from an actual alien former spy upon seeing the character's opulent lifestyle "I chose the wrong intelligence service"), he requries to get a great deal of money. So he gfoes to the casino and proceeds to pick the Baccarat table clean (yes, Baccarat). When he does, a casino character tells him "You're an excellent Baccarat player."

Again, same reaction. Assuming straight Baccarat without a countable side bet, the top minds in gambling agree you can't gain a significant edge in Baccarat by any skill you may bring to the table. At BJ he could coutn cards and, possibly, made a killing if he bet high enough, played well enough, and variance was on his side that night.

3) A better one, again on DS9 but this time a book called, if memory serves "The Big Game." Amid technobabble, the station falling apart, a serial killer on the lose, malfunctioning cheating systems, a poker tournament is held at Quark's Bar. here a Vulcan is playing among others. Someone asks him how he can bluff when Vulcans, it is assumed, do not lie.

The answer is not that bad. It goes something like this: In poker, the player who wins is the one who claims he can do so and convinces the other players to believe him. Therefore a bluff, when believed, is not a lie at all, provided the player bluffing does not show his cards.

We can argue whether bluffing is or isn't lying, but the explanation sort of makes sense.

This book also made mention of specific hands, and some problems faced in tournaments (like thinking you're playing the last hand instead of the current one). In the final hand, one character ahs a straight lfuch and the other a full house, in Texas Hold 'em. So when they both go all in, they both ahve a reasonable expectation to win by doing so.

IMO, the author did know at least something about playing poker.

Quote: Nareed

I read tons of sicence fiction, and I've watched many SF shows as well. Sometimes gambling comes up, usually all wrong. Here are some bits that stick in my mind:

2) Star Trek Deep Space Nine. In an episode where Dr. Bashir is playing a James Bond type secret agent in the holodeck (funny quip from an actual alien former spy upon seeing the character's opulent lifestyle "I chose the wrong intelligence service"), he requries to get a great deal of money. So he gfoes to the casino and proceeds to pick the Baccarat table clean (yes, Baccarat). When he does, a casino character tells him "You're an excellent Baccarat player."

Again, same reaction. Assuming straight Baccarat without a countable side bet, the top minds in gambling agree you can't gain a significant edge in Baccarat by any skill you may bring to the table.

Did they show that it was the same "baccarat" as played in Vegas? Perhaps the rules for baccarat have changed over the centuries.

Also, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in Europe, isn't "baccarat" more along the lines of Chemin de Fer, but with two separate player hands? (I think "Vegas baccarat" is called "punto banco" in Europe.)

Quote: Nareed

In an episode where Dr. Bashir is playing a James Bond type secret agent in the holodeck (funny quip from an actual alien former spy upon seeing the character's opulent lifestyle "I chose the wrong intelligence service"), he requries to get a great deal of money.

Did Garak the Cardassian say that? Love that character.

The first thought in my head when I saw this thread title was - Fizzbin!

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Did they show that it was the same "baccarat" as played in Vegas? Perhaps the rules for baccarat have changed over the centuries.

I won't go Trekkie on that.

Quote:

Also, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in Europe, isn't "baccarat" more along the lines of Chemin de Fer, but with two separate player hands? (I think "Vegas baccarat" is called "punto banco" in Europe.)

I believe so. But as far as I know neither variant is countable. In any case, they said "Baccarat" not anything else. IMO the average person has no idea what Baccarat is.

Quote: progrocker

Did Garak the Cardassian say that? Love that character.

Who else would? :)

Quote: ddloml

The first thought in my head when I saw this thread title was - Fizzbin!

I just watched that freakin' episode last week.

Quote: Nareed

2) Star Trek Deep Space Nine. In an episode where Dr. Bashir is playing a James Bond type secret agent in the holodeck (funny quip from an actual alien former spy upon seeing the character's opulent lifestyle "I chose the wrong intelligence service"), he requries to get a great deal of money. So he gfoes to the casino and proceeds to pick the Baccarat table clean (yes, Baccarat). When he does, a casino character tells him "You're an excellent Baccarat player."

It's a reference to James Bond, who in the original books is an 'excellent' Chemin de fer/Baccarat player.

He's in the holodeck, playing a spy, to live out a dream. Course he'll do well.

Quatloos

Quote: SOOPOO

Quatloos

Yes, well, for that matter there's the coin flip game Louis Wu is conned into playing with an alien in "There is a Tide..." But that was a ruse to.. well, that would be a spoiler :)

But that does it. I'll have to insert a gambling scene in one of my stories. I think I'll have the Chief Scientist in "Ours" explain why Baccarat can't be counted profitably.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quatloos

Latinum!

It's not Sci-fi but I'm pretty sure that Sky Masterson rolled a seven after singing a song about lady luck.

It's also interesting to see fictional games, such as Dabo:

Quote: Nareed

Who else would? :)

Garak is my favorite fictional character from any book, movie, TV show, etc. I just love him so much.

If you haven't read A Stitch in Time, you should. It's written by Andrew Robinson, who played Garak.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Garak is my favorite fictional character from any book, movie, TV show, etc. I just love him so much.

If you haven't read A Stitch in Time, you should. It's written by Andrew Robinson, who played Garak.

Thanks. I've been on a long break off Trek novels for some time now. But if I get back into that, I'll be sure to look it up.

Garak was ok, a good mix of dangerous and funny, all told. Not your typical Trek character.

In Robert Heinlein's infamous Stranger in a Strange Land,
gambling is how the Church in the book raises money.
They run casinos and its not considered a sin to gamble,
quite the opposite. Kinda like the Catholic Church is now.

While not actually playing the game, I love when Kirk invokes poker and a great bluff, in The Corbomite Maneuver.

After the bluff works, Spock replies, "Interesting game, this... poker..."

Quote: DJTeddyBear

After the bluff works, Spock replies, "Interesting game, this... poker..."

Isn't that the one where Kirk brings up games and Spock says "chess?"

Which brings up the question: how accurately is chess portrayed in science fiction? I know that in one of his early novels, Isaac Asimov described a whole chess match. In "Pebble in the Sky" in fact. Of course I understood nothing about it (remember I signed up for the WoV Chess tournament as cannon fodder?)

Quote: Nareed

1) Babylon 5. In the very first episode, the arrival of the station's "commercial" telepath is seized on to provide a tour of the station. One place mentioned is the casino. The commander tells the telepath she can go into the casino, but she's barred by law from playing.

At the time I thought nothing of it, but now I'm saying to myself "Huh?" It's established the telepath, and others like her, can read minds. I can see then they shoulnd't be allowed to play poker against toher gamblers, as they'd ahve an unfair advantage. they'd always know what cards the others held, whoc's blufing and who isn't. But most any other game gives a telepath no particular advantage. A roulette ball will be as random for her as for me, ditto a BJ deck or even a shoe.

In Babylon 5, powerful telepaths have the ability to project images into others' minds, as well as implanting false memories and suggestions. This is easiest to do against non-telepaths. Thus, in a game similar to blackjack and/or roulette, the telepath could presumably implant into the dealer that the telepath won and should be paid. While enough security would counteract this ability, I could see how this would be more cumbersome that it was worth.

Further, while extremely rare, the Babylon 5 universe allows for some telepaths to develop telekinesis, which would prove useful in a casino setting, especially at a game like roulette. Further, the rarity of the ability might make it extremely difficult to detect. Talia was given rudimentary telekinetic powers by a guy, whose name I can't recall at this time.

and really, if one were empathic or telepathic,
the universe would offer enough profit
without wasting your powers in a casino...

Quote: konceptum

In Babylon 5, powerful telepaths have the ability to project images into others' minds, as well as implanting false memories and suggestions.

Isn't there a harsh penalty for going Trekkie on Babylon 5 ;)

In any case, Lita had no such powers at the time.

Quote: Nareed

I read tons of sicence fiction, and I've watched many SF shows as well. Sometimes gambling comes up, usually all wrong

Star Trek: The Next Generation, second-season episode titled "The Royale" featured an inescapable hotel casino which the away team had to buy out in order to leave. The money game? Craps, with Data throwing come-out sevens! After both the impossibility of ever doubling a Pass wager enough times to win enough to buy the place (due to either security suspicion or table limit issues, or both, which would naturally arise!) and the greater efficiency of throwing aces or boxcars repeatedly are accounted for, when Riker says to Data, "But the odds of a six are no better than the odds of a seven", Data naively says, "That is why it is considered 'gambling'". No corrective comments about the probability of seven being greater than that of six to explain just how it's gambling. I sensed that the writers, in the majority at least, don't read about the math mechanics of casino games, rather reading just enough to insinuate a minute or so into a suspenseful bridge between climax and denouement.

But then there's the famous Baccarat travesty in Casino Royale which practically misrepresents the gameplay and strategy in order to show Bond (James Bond!) winning.

In the movie The Hunger Games there was brief mention that the trainers were not allowed to bet on their own team. Does anyone know if the book got into the issue of betting on the games in greater depth?

Quote: Nareed

Quote: DJTeddyBear

After the bluff works, Spock replies, "Interesting game, this... poker..."

Isn't that the one where Kirk brings up games and Spock says "chess?"

Which brings up the question: how accurately is chess portrayed in science fiction? I know that in one of his early novels, Isaac Asimov described a whole chess match. In "Pebble in the Sky" in fact. Of course I understood nothing about it (remember I signed up for the WoV Chess tournament as cannon fodder?)

How about the chess match in Blade Runner for ridiculous? We have a couple geniuses, and neither of them can see a 3 move checkmate without the help of a near-superhuman android.

Quote: Wizard

In the movie The Hunger Games there was brief mention that the trainers were not allowed to bet on their own team. Does anyone know if the book got into the issue of betting on the games in greater depth?

I read the books a couple of years ago, so I can't say
with complete certainty, but I don't remember much
at all being said about gambling on the outcomes.

There were "sponsors", and those sponsors could
buy things that would help the fighters. In the movie,
remember when the healing cream was parachuted
in ? In the book, that would have been "purchased"
by a sponsor and then provided to contestant.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

But then there's the famous Baccarat travesty in Casino Royale which practically misrepresents the gameplay and strategy in order to show Bond (James Bond!) winning.

Wait, what? I assume you're talking about the scene where Peter Sellers ("Bond") plays Orson Welles, which I thought was a pretty good scene for showing proper "Chemin Du Fer" strategy.

I just finished reading the books (haven't seen the movie). There is no specific mention of the trainers betting, other than they aren't allowed to do it. The book mentions numerous times how the managers of the "game" wait for new betting lines to be established and so forth. But the specifics of the wagering aren't discussed that I recall.

the extent of the "strategy" decision in chemin de fer:
whether to take a third card,
which mathematically and by custom actually boils down to
whether to hit or stand on a total of 5.
that's it.

i think the OP is referring to one of the other bond films:
Dr. No, where Bond is first introduced playing the game.
(also see: Thunderball; On Her Majesty's Secret Service; For Your Eyes Only; and GoldenEye).

Quote: vendman1

I just finished reading the books (haven't seen the movie). There is no specific mention of the trainers betting, other than they aren't allowed to do it. The book mentions numerous times how the managers of the "game" wait for new betting lines to be established and so forth. But the specifics of the wagering aren't discussed that I recall.

The film shows a brief shot of a large tote board with prices for each player. As I recall from a quick scan, the initial prices would have created an advantage play (I think the average price was 12-1, not 24-1).

Quote: Nareed

In any case, Lita had no such powers at the time.

No, but with the paranoia that most people had about the telepaths, and the belief that they have the ability to hide their power anyway, it stands to reason that a general rule that a casino would have is no telepaths allowed.

Looks like the outline for a discussion between Leonard
and Sheldonon Big Bang Theory.

The kids have started watching this show, we have
Season 1 on DVD from the library. Mrs Q thinks it is
the funniest thing ever, real laugh out loud funny.

Quote: WongBo

the extent of the "strategy" decision in chemin de fer:
whether to take a third card,
which mathematically and by custom actually boils down to
whether to hit or stand on a total of 5.

In Bond's case, he seems to be willing to break the custom. Not sure, but I think I've seen him do that in films.

If you are willing to do it, opponent-reading skills come into play, if you are in position (player). After all, you need to beat his score, and only to beat his score.

Then there are baccarat CDF tournaments - in original Casino Royale, Bond was playing one.

of course you can decide to draw when the odds favor standing,
but this would still fall into the category of luck rather than skill.

a tournament is more dependent on betting strategy rather than playing strategy.
perhaps the reference was to his skill in the betting strategy.

Quote: WongBo

of course you can decide to draw when the odds favor standing,
but this would still fall into the category of luck rather than skill.

If I get a read that my opponent had a 5 (that part is easy), then a read that he missed his draw (not so easy), and I have a 4 - then it's the right decision to stand, and there's no luck about it.

Of course betting strategy is an important part as well, but it's not like you can't use skill in Baccarat (proper).

Quote: Wizard

In the movie The Hunger Games there was brief mention that the trainers were not allowed to bet on their own team. Does anyone know if the book got into the issue of betting on the games in greater depth?

does this infer that they are allowed to bet on other teams? if thats the case, that seems like it could provide incentive to train their team poorly.

Quote: P90

If I get a read that my opponent had a 5 (that part is easy), then a read that he missed his draw (not so easy), and I have a 4 - then it's the right decision to stand, and there's no luck about it.

Of course betting strategy is an important part as well, but it's not like you can't use skill in Baccarat (proper).

i agree there is some skill involved in chemin de fer
mostly as banker

Quote: rudeboyoi

Quote: Wizard

In the movie The Hunger Games there was brief mention that the trainers were not allowed to bet on their own team. Does anyone know if the book got into the issue of betting on the games in greater depth?

does this infer that they are allowed to bet on other teams? if thats the case, that seems like it could provide incentive to train their team poorly.

This might make for an interesting discussion on semantics. In my mind, if you are not allowed to bet on your own team, the implication is that you also cannot bet AGAINST your own team, ie, on other teams. Betting on another team is identical to betting on your own team to lose, and it has been indicated that you cannot bet on your own team.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Star Trek: The Next Generation, second-season episode titled "The Royale" featured an inescapable hotel casino which the away team had to buy out in order to leave. The money game? Craps, with Data throwing come-out sevens! After both the impossibility of ever doubling a Pass wager enough times to win enough to buy the place (due to either security suspicion or table limit issues, or both, which would naturally arise!) and the greater efficiency of throwing aces or boxcars repeatedly are accounted for, when Riker says to Data, "But the odds of a six are no better than the odds of a seven", Data naively says, "That is why it is considered 'gambling'". No corrective comments about the probability of seven being greater than that of six to explain just how it's gambling. I sensed that the writers, in the majority at least, don't read about the math mechanics of casino games, rather reading just enough to insinuate a minute or so into a suspenseful bridge between climax and denouement.

But then there's the famous Baccarat travesty in Casino Royale which practically misrepresents the gameplay and strategy in order to show Bond (James Bond!) winning.

Despite the omissions/errors you noted, this remains one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek, although I had seen it many times before I ever gambled. After I learned how to play Blackjack and Craps, I went back to this episode and have watched it several times since.

The entire casino environment was actually based on a paperback novel that the aliens on the planet found on an Earth space vehicle. It was in this book, on which the place was based, that 3 outside investors would go on a crazy lucky streak and buy out the casino. So things like table limits/suspicion/etc. are really the fault of the fictional author within the episode, who was noted by Picard as pretty terrible. The comments about six/seven probability are annoying though, since Riker and Data actually exchanged those independently. Also of note is that Data actually repaired the dice to be completely fair before going on the lucky streak, they were loaded (presumably in the Casino's favor) when the away team arrived. Once the dice were fair, the "script" of the casino allowed them to win all the money.

My two favorite lines from the episode:
"Come on boy, now my blind grandma could roll a six!" -Tex, after someone establishes a six for the point

Tex: "Now you ain't one of them card-counting fellas, are you?"
Data: "Card counting? The number of cards and their values remain quite constant. Would would be the use in counting them?"
Here again is an annoying discrepancy: with Data's vast internal library of history, SURELY he would have been able to look up "card counting" and realize what Tex was talking about. Given Data's android status, counting down the single deck game to win their millions and buy out the place would be a waaay more believable than winning at craps.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Given Data's android status, counting down the single deck game to win their millions and buy out the place would be a waaay more believable than winning at craps.

but isn't a little more fun to watch someone win big at craps then watching someone count down a deck? :)

Quote: WongBo

but isn't a little more fun to watch someone win big at craps then watching someone count down a deck? :)

Well for me or another card counter, the blackjack might be more fun, but you're absolutely right - Exhibit A why I'm not a Hollywood writer.

This thread reminded me that I need to watch Babylon 5 (regarded by many lists/polls online as one of the best scifi series ever) so I started up this weekend with The Gathering pilot telemovie (TNT edit). Good stuff so far, and in addition to the already mentioned telepath that was barred from casino gaming, there was a drunken and broke Centauri ambassador that needed someone to bankroll his 'almost perfect' system at a craps like game. I get the impression that he's going to my favorite character.

Quote: progrocker

Good stuff so far, and in addition to the already mentioned telepath that was barred from casino gaming, there was a drunken and broke Centauri ambassador that needed someone to bankroll his 'almost perfect' system at a craps like game. I get the impression that he's going to my favorite character.

Good decision. Dramatically speaking, it's the best SF show ever, bar none. Just so you know, there's a long-term story about "the last of the Babylon stations." About the characters, I'll just give you this warning in the form of a quote from the show "No one here is what they seem to be."

Let's talk again when you've watched most of it.

Ditto the sentiment on Babylon 5. Watch it.

Back when it was first being aired, J. Michael Straczynski was a regular member on Usenet forums. It was amazing to have conversations with him and his thoughts and feelings as the show was being broadcast. It was also interesting to hear about his trials and tribulations and arguments with network executives who still believed that science fiction would never gather a following.

Quote: konceptum

It was also interesting to hear about his trials and tribulations and arguments with network executives who still believed that science fiction would never gather a following.

It's amazing they think that way after Star Trek and Star Wars, isn't it? Granted the following for an SF franchise can be realtively small, but still in the millions, it's nevertheless obsessive and will consume large quantities of everything you can think of: games, T-shirts, replicas, "action figures," shows, movies, books, etc etc.

What I'd like is to know what "Crusade" was going to be like. There were rumors that the real sotry wasn't how to cure the plague afflicting Earth.

Unfortunately, I never got farther than the original 5 years of television shows. I got a bit annoyed. During the early years of the show, JMS consistently stated how he had developed a 5-year story, and that was the story he wanted to tell, and that he wanted nothing more than that. Around the 4th year, it became clear that he was more than willing to capitalize on the franchise. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire to make as much money as possible. But I felt like the hypocrisy of his earlier statements ruined things for me.

All that being, I really enjoyed the 5 year story arc, but mostly the first 3 years. I also admired the fact that JMS brought in Harlan Ellison as a creative consultant on the majority of the show.

Sci-fi shows have the problem that they tend to be more expensive to film than your standard police procedural. So with a lower audience and higher budget.. well, do the sums.

I enjoyed B5 for the first three seasons, then turned off once we got into all the Vorlon/Shadows bobbins and the main characters making heroic speeches every three minutes. I never watched the fifth season at all. The epic story back drop got in the way too much of the more enjoyable details of the first series (I want my characters swept up in events, I guess, not creating them).

Quote: konceptum

Unfortunately, I never got farther than the original 5 years of television shows.

I highly recommend reading the Technomage Trilogy by Jeanne Cavellos. It clears up a few things. And the characters of both Galen and Elric are very interesting. In fact, I'm about done re-reading it just now, which is one reason SF has been on my mind lately.

The other two trilogies, one about Psy Corps and one about Londo, Vir and Centauri Prime, are ok.

Quote:

I got a bit annoyed. During the early years of the show, JMS consistently stated how he had developed a 5-year story, and that was the story he wanted to tell, and that he wanted nothing more than that. Around the 4th year, it became clear that he was more than willing to capitalize on the franchise. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire to make as much money as possible. But I felt like the hypocrisy of his earlier statements ruined things for me.

Often when writing the story you want, you'll find you want more of it. That's not necessarily a move towards expanding the market or embracing the franchise, though it can be.

Quote:

All that being, I really enjoyed the 5 year story arc, but mostly the first 3 years.

Hmm, the 4th season felt rushed, IMO. The 5th season, on the other hand, kind of languished. It was an interesting attempt to keep the story going after a major paradigm shift in the galaxy, but IMO it fell a bit flat.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, you get five pages into sci-fi gambling and not even a mention of Tongo? It was never really discussed in-depth, but seemed like a mix of poker and roulette. Any game whose best hand is called a "total monopoly" is good in my book though. Also, like poker in TNG, it was used quite often to develop relationships between the characters and the leader of the Ferengi Alliance was the best player for several (27?) years in a row.

Seasons 1-3 of B5 were great, season 4 should have been where it ended. The season 4 finale where they try and show that history gets distorted through time was an excellent finale. One thing that's unique about this series is that the writing was done predominantly by the same guy, the creator. This might have been how things were done in the 90's, but as a huge fan of TV I can tell you that there are very rarely consecutive episodes written by the same guy.

It's sort of gambling. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the Infinite Improbability Drive is described as follows:

Quote: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Infinite Improbability Drive

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast intersteller distances in a mere nothingth of a second without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

It was discovered by a lucky chance, and then developed into a governable form of propulsion by the Galactic Government's research team on Damogran.

This, briefly, is the story of its discovery.

The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molicules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.

Another thing they couldn't stand was the perpetual failure they encountered in trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralysing distances between the furthest stars, and in the end they grumpily announced that such a machine was virtually imposssible.

Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up the lab after a particulary unsuccessful party found himself reasoning this way:

"If", he thought to himself, "such a machine is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one, is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn it on!"

He did this, and was rather startled to discover that he had managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator out of thin air.

It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smartass.

Quote: Nareed

Often when writing the story you want, you'll find you want more of it. That's not necessarily a move towards expanding the market or embracing the franchise, though it can be.

I would be ok with this. But JMS explicitly stated that the story, that is, the 5-year story, had already been written prior to the filming of the show. What I really think is that he had this wonderful idea for a story, and it was a good one, but as it got closer to the end, he realized he had a potential cash cow, so why kill it? Thus, it was easier to start changing things, and leaving things open, in order to have possible other story arcs. This is the main reason why I feel like the 4th and 5th years were just not as good as the first 3.

Quote: JMS

B5 has always been conceived as, fundamentally, a five year story, a novel for television, which makes it very different as well.

Written in 1993, just prior to the pilot.