Baggage you wish Star Trek could be free of?

[Shawnster]

The point is WHERE IT LANDS.

If someone is going to send one of those things to my living room so they can later beam there, they'd better warn me when to open the balcony door and step back, because otherwise this transporter-pad-to-be is going to smack into the side of the building.

So no - it can't be dropped "anyplace." And if it's dropped outside, it better be onto a surface that can take it without causing harm to the surface, or accidentally dropping it on someone's head and killing them, or causing other trouble. And what happens after the crew leaves - do they take it back with them, or just leave transporter pads littering everywhere?

I think that's the point is that people wouldn't be able to beam into your living room. They would have to land the pad outside and then walk over to your front door.

I think this is how transporter should have to operate in the earlier era's. The very first transporters would have to be pad to pad transporters. Only way more advanced version could be site to site.

I see transporters being used early on as cargo only transportation devices. Then after a few decades transporters are finally capable of transporting living things.

Regardless of how advanced it is, having a transporter that only works outside would be a major problem on a planet with a toxic atmosphere.

Yes. But the people who built the structure can include a transporter pad.

If you are thinking of a situation where our Starfleet officers are encountering an advanced civilization that lives in a toxic environment and that doesn't have a transporter receiver, well that can be a story point. As stated, an environmental suit could work.

Yet, in all of Star Trek, it's rare that a toxic environment has been depicted. Not saying never, just saying rare.

You really seem opposed to the idea of needing a transporter receiver. That's OK. To each their own. It's just that your objections really aren't that detrimental to the story on a regular basis.

 

[T'Girl]

Regardless of how advanced it is, having a transporter that only works outside would be a major problem on a planet with a toxic atmosphere.

But if you were beaming into a building of the indigenous species, wouldn't there be toxic atmosphere inside the building as well?

If someone is going to send one of those things to my living room so they can later beam there, they'd better warn me when to open the balcony door

Good idea.

And what happens after the crew leaves - do they take it back with them

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

or accidentally dropping it on someone's head and killing them

That would be a problem with beaming too, wouldn't it?

And I doubt that (strictly speaking) they would be "dropping" it.

 

[fireproof78]

Enviromental suits or encounter suit get used more often than.

They would be, but it would be really inconvenient from both an in-story pov and a production pov. If that were the case, I would think that the "environmental belt" things we saw in TAS would have come up a lot sooner, in the live-action show.

The belts could be introduced, but not sure why environmental suits would be inconvenient from an in-world POV, other than the nuisance of putting them on. But, that would be part of the training and some times daily tasks of Starfleet officers, I would imagine. Just like modern hazmat suits get used. Given that toxic planets occur rarely, it sounds hardly detrimental to a couple of stories to utilize them.

Production pov is only a nuisance again for the actors to wear them. Once the costume is crafted, why not use it?

 

[Ithekro]

Also toy marketing. The more outfits the heroes havem the more versions of the toys you can sell.

 

[IrishNero]

Science fiction can do whatever it wants, so long as it is self-consistent in the rules it sets up for itself.

Well, that rules Trek out.

No consistency is needed for most shows as they don't have the historical basis for canon. But when you have 700+ shows and movies...

 

[Shawnster]

Science fiction can do whatever it wants, so long as it is self-consistent in the rules it sets up for itself.

Well, that rules Trek out.

No consistency is needed for most shows as they don't have the historical basis for canon. But when you have 700+ shows and movies...

Eh. it doesn't take nearly half that 700 to find plenty of inconsistency. I'm not being a hater, though. Star Trek is my first love.

You'd probably be hard pressed to find any work of fiction that is consistent in the rules it sets up for itself.

 

[mahler]

Star Trek never was true science fiction. Entertaining.....yes, however many of the stories are clearly more fantasy based.

 

[JWPlatt]

Science fiction can do whatever it wants, so long as it is self-consistent in the rules it sets up for itself.

Well, that rules Trek out.

No consistency is needed for most shows as they don't have the historical basis for canon. But when you have 700+ shows and movies...

Eh. it doesn't take nearly half that 700 to find plenty of inconsistency. I'm not being a hater, though. Star Trek is my first love.

You'd probably be hard pressed to find any work of fiction that is consistent in the rules it sets up for itself.

It is admittedly an ideal.

 

[Ithekro]

Presently the only sci-fi shows that need to worry about the 700+ problem are Star Trek and Doctor Who. Though with Disney going all out, Star Wars might join them eventually.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek never was true science fiction. Entertaining.....yes, however many of the stories are clearly more fantasy based.

"True science fiction"? What that? SF is a big tent genre.

 

[Kor]

^ I think he means "hard science fiction."
And it isn't. But that in itself doesn't reduce its value, IMO.
There is literary hard science fiction that is absolutely unreadable, and there is soft science fiction that is very well-crafted.

Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

^ I think he means "hard science fiction."
And it isn't. But that in itself doesn't reduce its value, IMO.
There is literary hard science fiction that is absolutely unreadable, and there is soft science fiction that is very well-crafted.

Kor

Oh, I've slogged through a few hard SF novels in my day. It's my SF sub-genre of choice. Not adverse to the soft stuff either.

 

[Mojochi]

We could do with leaving behind the one dimensional alien races. It had it's day with Vulcans, but by the time the Ferengis came around, it was kind of insulting. Constantly taking an aspect of human behavior and isolating as a defining characteristic of a whole group of people, while useful to a point, wears thin damn fast. I honestly don't think that was the intention the Vulcan race was meant to have, that every alien race from then on be a stereotype, even if there's a cheap ability to use it as a commentary on life

The only character arc you can possibly get from it is "Can Character X finally break free of their narrow minded ways, in order to become an actual person?"

 

[enterprisecvn65]

To something much earlier on teh military aspect of Star Trek. The nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise was brought up as a point in having the show be military because it was the biggest most powerful ship at the time. I would point out that in 1964, the USS Enterprise was unarmed. She had no weapons installed until the late 1970s refit installed defensive weapons. USS Enterprise only had the defense of whatever aircraft she was carrying and her escorting ships.

This doesn't address the issue of beaming into a building. All of your landing parties would land outside? And how does this "unmanned lander" build the transporter thingy - an automated "add water and stir" and poof! - there it is and ready for use?

If used I would assume it is a preassembled pad that unfolds once it lands. A prefab unit that can be dropped anyplace.

Uh actually couldn't be more wrong about the Enterprise not having any weapons. She actually had close to 100 of the on her in combat zones......that's because an AIRCRAFT carrier's main weapons are its AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!

You're right that she was technically unarmed that she had no weapons installed as an actual part of the ship until the 70's and when they started to put in sea sparrow launchers and the CWIS gun......to say that means she didn't have any weapons and wasn't one, if not, THE most powerful ship afloat at the time of TOS is totally and utterly wrong.

She had no weapons because the ship based weapons at the time to shoot down incoming jets and missiles were so big and complex it would be impractical to install it on an aircraft carrier because it would take up so much room. That's why a carrier always has a large screen of escorting ships with anti aircraft missiles. The ship's planes are also a potent weapon in defending the fleet as well.

The Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor had very few guns installed and none had a range of more than a mile and couldn't seriously damage a warship......Yet I'd say the planes she carried did a pretty tremendous job of destroying a large part of the US battleship fleet. Those planes didn't fly across the entire Pacific ocean and attack, they had platforms that carried them and all the bombs and torpedoes and fuel the needed to a point within range and then launched them.

Likewise no US carrier in WWII, except the two old Lexington class ships which had 8 inch guns for a while until they were removed because they were pointless, carrier anything bigger than a 5 inch gun on board, the same size gun the lightly armored destroyers carried. Yes they were bristling with 100 or more anti aircraft guns of differing size, but if a carrier with no had aircraft met a battleship those guns would have been as effective as BB's while the battleships guns would have ripped the carrier apart.

Yet, at least in terms of US fleet carriers, that never happened. Why? because the ship's aircraft usually spotted the battleship 100 or more miles away and then the carrier launched massive attacks with its AIRCRAFT that put it under the waves in short order.

If you're saying the carrier itself isn't a weapon because it doesn't do the actual damage, rather it launches the aircraft that do the damage, then you might as well say a gun isn't a weapon because all it does is fire the bullet that kills, the gun itself it just a tool to deliver the actual firepower......

I don't see where you can even begin to say that, just because the planes take off and attack and they aren't actually bolted on to the carrier the ship itself isn't a weapon. The ship is designed to allow those planes to hit targets that would otherwise be unreachable by land aircraft and has all the facilities to arm, fuel, launch, recover and maintain the aircraft. Oh and it has nuclear weapon delivery capabilities if needed. Sounds like a weapon to me. Just because the air wing disembarks doesn't make the ship not a weapon. Just like not having live ammo in a gun doesn't make it not a weapon.

 

[Ithekro]

An unarmed Aircraft Carrier can be used for anything. Much like a Starship can be used for anything. The fact that it is unarmed just allows the hand to be presented open. The airplanes can be carried or not. Any gester can be made depending on what you put on the carrier. The same for Starfleet. It depends what you put onboard that counts. Never go overzealous in attributing military hardward to Starfleet. It does not suit them.

As for Japanese carriers in World War II. Kaga and Akagi still had some of their 8 inch guns mounts on the sides of the ships. They had had twin turrets like the Lexingtons prior to their 1930s refits, but those were removed as they took up space needed for the new decks. Also the likely wouldn't ever get in range to use them in combat anyway. The Lexingtons had their 8 inch turrets removed in 1942.

Mind you that the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was likely named for the World War II carrier, not the, at that time, new nuclear carrier. I say this since it had been the idea to name the ship USS Yorktown, Enterprise's sister ship and the class ship of the Yorktown-class carriers. She was the star right up to her sinking. Enterprise probably never made it to the legend of Yorktown during the war, she was a tough ship that kept going, but Enterprise was by far more legendary as the survivor who saw the most battles.

 

[Shawnster]

We could do with leaving behind the one dimensional alien races. It had it's day with Vulcans, but by the time the Ferengis came around, it was kind of insulting. Constantly taking an aspect of human behavior and isolating as a defining characteristic of a whole group of people, while useful to a point, wears thin damn fast. I honestly don't think that was the intention the Vulcan race was meant to have, that every alien race from then on be a stereotype, even if there's a cheap ability to use it as a commentary on life

The only character arc you can possibly get from it is "Can Character X finally break free of their narrow minded ways, in order to become an actual person?"

Maybe this is a reflection on our inability to write alien characters that are alien. We only have the human point of view to draw upon.

 

[Tim Walker]

Which suggests that alien characters should have been used very sparingly.

 

[fireproof78]

We could do with leaving behind the one dimensional alien races. It had it's day with Vulcans, but by the time the Ferengis came around, it was kind of insulting. Constantly taking an aspect of human behavior and isolating as a defining characteristic of a whole group of people, while useful to a point, wears thin damn fast. I honestly don't think that was the intention the Vulcan race was meant to have, that every alien race from then on be a stereotype, even if there's a cheap ability to use it as a commentary on life

The only character arc you can possibly get from it is "Can Character X finally break free of their narrow minded ways, in order to become an actual person?"

Maybe this is a reflection on our inability to write alien characters that are alien. We only have the human point of view to draw upon.

I think the "Devil in the Dark" is probably among the best examples of Trek doing aliens right.

I agree that writing aliens is difficult, but there are aspects around this. The trouble is, getting that point of view across in a 45 minute episode. So, it isn't just writing alien, um, aliens, but also being able to communicate their struggle, let us identify with them and resolve the conflict.

In this case, I think Trek could take a page from Stargate: SG 1 in terms of race building. There were slow reveals about their culture, their desires, and human characters arguing against them. It allowed differences and similarities to be defined.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

An unarmed Aircraft Carrier can be used for anything. Much like a Starship can be used for anything. The fact that it is unarmed just allows the hand to be presented open. The airplanes can be carried or not. Any gester can be made depending on what you put on the carrier. The same for Starfleet. It depends what you put onboard that counts. Never go overzealous in attributing military hardward to Starfleet. It does not suit them.

As for Japanese carriers in World War II. Kaga and Akagi still had some of their 8 inch guns mounts on the sides of the ships. They had had twin turrets like the Lexingtons prior to their 1930s refits, but those were removed as they took up space needed for the new decks. Also the likely wouldn't ever get in range to use them in combat anyway. The Lexingtons had their 8 inch turrets removed in 1942.

Mind you that the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was likely named for the World War II carrier, not the, at that time, new nuclear carrier. I say this since it had been the idea to name the ship USS Yorktown, Enterprise's sister ship and the class ship of the Yorktown-class carriers. She was the star right up to her sinking. Enterprise probably never made it to the legend of Yorktown during the war, she was a tough ship that kept going, but Enterprise was by far more legendary as the survivor who saw the most battles.

I'm aware of the fact there was the USS Enterprise CV-6 and the USS Enterprise CVN-65 and I have an actual piece of the flight deck of the former in my office as my most prized World War II possession

Actually the Enterprise CV-6 was by FAR the most famous US carrier of WWII, way more than the CV-5 Yorktown. The Yorktown herself was in two major battles (Coral Sea and Midway) before she was sunk. The Enterprise participated in every major battle except Coral Sea and one other I can't remember off hand and she only missed Coral Sea because she was the escort carrier for the Hornet on the Doolittle Raid. She was also the ship whose aircraft bagged 3 of the 4 carriers sunk (Yorktown's got the other before she was sunk) at Midway, the most decisive naval engagement of the whole war.

She won 20 Battle Stars, the most of any ship in US history and did it in a span of 4 years. Ships have had 40-50 year careers and none have matched that total. No other carrier was even close. She was the only ship in World War II that won the Presidential Unit Citation and the Navy Unit Citation and is the ONLY non British ship in history that has been awarded and Admirality Pennant by the Royal Navy. And it's one of the biggest disgraces in US history that she was sold for scrap. It's like if they built a strip mall and condos on Gettysburg.

The only other two US ships in WWII that could claim to be as famous were the Arizona and the Missouri. One's claim to fame was how many people were killed in it's destruction and had no WWII combat career and the Missouri had a very short and undistinguished combat but happened to be named for Harry Truman's home state and was selected, over far more other worthy ships, to be the site of the Japanese surrender.

I have no doubt the WWII Enterprise was a large part of why the name was chosen, but it didn't hurt that the most famous active ship in the Navy, as well as generally to be considered the most powerful surface ship afloat at the time TOS premiered was also named Enterprise. A ship that was also a pioneer for being the first nuclear powered carrier.

As for your, the ship can be an ambassador too, I agree. But almost any weapon can be used for other purposed. B-52's can be unloaded and used to transport people if necessary, other Navy ships are often used as rescue vessels, the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds carry no loaded weapons during their shows of goodwill, an AK 47 could be made into a lamp....This doesn't mean at their core they're still weapons designed to kill and destroy things.

The ST Enterprises were, at their core, ships of war. I don't care how many goodwill missions they went on or the fact that in TNG families lived on the ships. They were vessels that were HEAVILY armed with weapons for defensive and offensive purposes.

There may have been other starships that carried little or no firepower and weren't really warships, but the Enterprise of any letter was always a heavily armed first line ship of war and it's clear those systems, besides the warp system, were usually the most important ones in the ship.

 

[mos6507]

We could do with leaving behind the one dimensional alien races. It had it's day with Vulcans, but by the time the Ferengis came around, it was kind of insulting. Constantly taking an aspect of human behavior and isolating as a defining characteristic of a whole group of people, while useful to a point, wears thin damn fast. I honestly don't think that was the intention the Vulcan race was meant to have, that every alien race from then on be a stereotype, even if there's a cheap ability to use it as a commentary on life

The only character arc you can possibly get from it is "Can Character X finally break free of their narrow minded ways, in order to become an actual person?"

There are certain core "riffs" of Trek. That's one of them. The Gulliver's Travels thing mixed with trying to get something to exceed its cultural programming.

And it produced some of the most memorable Trek episodes. Not just Spock, but let's say, Hugh (I, Borg). If you vow never to go there again you're really chopping out one of the core things that make Trek Trek.

Trek very much revolves around core issues of identity and belonging, nature vs. nurture, individuality vs. conformity, pulling together and working as a team, all very good building-blocks for a compelling story, regardless of genre. Throw them all out on the basis of them being worn out tropes and what do you have left? What does any story have left? There's only so many stories to tell.

I mean, if people are just tired of Trek, fine. But I don't see how you can start wiping out major aspects of what makes it unique and still have it Trek in anything but its most superficial aspects of LCARS and saucer-shaped ships and phasers.

I mean, really. Why bother?