View Single Post
Old April 2 2013, 12:14 PM   #229
Vice Admiral
T'Girl's Avatar
Location: Looking for somewhere to put my urine sample down
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

BillJ wrote: View Post
The "no female Starfleet captains" would also tend to make the Federation look ass-backwards when we saw a female Romulan commander a few episodes earlier.
I personally interpreted it as Kirk's career precluded a relationship with Janice, he choose it over her.

But it could be seen another way, just as it sounds coming out of Janice's mouth. Science fiction often depicts societies in the future that are different than our own. It might be that at that particular time in history Human females actually could not be assigned to the posting of Captain, that there was a "glass ceiling" in place, there had been one for some years, and would be for another twenty odd years in the Trek universe.

There no requirement that the mid 23rd century be a exact analog of the early 21st century. Even today among the western nations, it quite rare for a female officer to be given command of a combatant naval vessel.

CaptainStoner wrote: View Post
No money is NOT on the worst list by any means!
Step out of the "in-universe" for a moment, and look at it from a story telling point of view. Having money in the story, with all the things that come with that, adds a level of complexity to the life's of the characters that otherwise would be absent.

Having no money would be simplistic and easy. It'd be like having a planet with one climate (desert, forest, ice). One race. One culture. One religion. One style of dress. "In-universe," (out of range of the cameras) the worlds visited likely aren't the same everywhere, they're complex and diverse

So "in-universe" the bolt of cloth did come out of Beverly's pay, and the poker games did have monetary gambling, the O'Brien's wedding gift from the replicator was deducted from Worf's account. And when you get food and drink in Ten Forward, you do pay for it.

yousirname wrote: View Post
Again, your interpretation renders the statement meaningless.
Tell you what, let us cut this down to a basic fact of the show ... WE SEE AND HEAR THEM USING MONEY.

Take for example the house we see Kirk in (Generations). Kirk clearly states that he owned the house, and he sold the house at some point. While there is some debate, the usual interpretation is that the time period where Kirk is cooking the eggs is between TMP and TWOK. So prior to the events of TVH, Kirk owned a piece of real estate, that he would sell.

Scotty bought a boat, Uhura tried to buy a tribble.

yousirname wrote: View Post
Ronald D. Moore wrote:
By the time I joined TNG, Gene had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that. Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that.
This is one of the quotes I usually add to debates on this subject. The writers of the show lived in a society with a market economy, this is why (despite Roddenberry's wish) money and monetary reference keep making their way into the episodes. It's how for instants a Federation member got a major bank. And Quark was able to sell his shuttle in Earth's system for scrap. And a corporation within the Federation was able to own entire planets.

Now only a few episodes before, Jake personally engaged in a business transaction that resulted in Jake acquiring ... currency (GPL)
And he also 'sells' his first article, and receives no payment. Again, irretrievably self-contradictory.
The difference there of course is Jake actual did received monetary value for the sell of the land. It was made clear in the example of the book that Jake (as he said himself) was indeed employing a figure of speech.

What is in the least "self-contradictory" about any of that?

... irretrievably ...
I don't think you're using that correctly.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote