I guess I forgot that Star Trek is not supposed to be fun.
That was the missing rule from Roddenberry's original guidelines: "Characters must not have relatable human flaws, make silly mistakes, or think about sex."
Trek's lowest moment
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I guess I forgot that Star Trek is not supposed to be fun.
That was the missing rule from Roddenberry's original guidelines: "Characters must not have relatable human flaws, make silly mistakes, or think about sex."
I guess I forgot that Star Trek is not supposed to be fun.
That was the missing rule from Roddenberry's original guidelines: "Characters must not have relatable human flaws, make silly mistakes, or think about sex."
Makes sense to me
She may not be the absolute lowest low point of the franchise, but man do I hate Sela. I could complain about how it cheapens the ending of Yesterday's Enterprise, but I actually don't care, I just think it was a powerfully shitty idea that sticking Denise Crosby in a particularly terrible Romulan wig would make for a villain good or even mildly interesting enough to appear in two different two-part episodes. Her only saving grace, I guess, is that they later came up with an even hokier idea for a pseudo-Romulan villain in the movie Nemesis.
"Comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere" is true for all non-serialized Trek stories. Take Picard#s seond life, it should have had a tremendous impact upon him but in the next episode it is ignored for obvious reasons.
There is nothing wrong with preferring slightly theatrical (emaing nor realistic, larger than life) captains like Kirk and Picard. The latter is by far my favourite Trek character. But I tremendously enjoyed to see Archer mess up in two respect in "A Night in Sickbay". It is also perfect in synch with the character, Archer is the first captain out there who messes up and learns hard lessons.
Here it might be on the funny side but so what, Trek doesn't always have to be deas serious.
Actually, I do. I also know a great deal about the politics of science.
And they are working to produce that proof. And have produced some very interesting proofs. I suggest a good Google search.
Bill Nye said:
Straw man. Young Earth Creationism is not the only venue where scientific research is being performed. There are plenty of scientists who are perfectly willing to accept a multi-billion year-old universe that was created/designed.
Circling back to Picard, my point is that supposedly "tolerant" Starfleet officers like Picard have a surprisingly intolerant stance on many issues when it suits them.
On a related note, the supposedly "compassionate" Federation can be a stone b****** to less developed societies in the 24th century, interpreting the PD so strictly that even intervention that the natives won't know about cannot be permitted. Better for whole societies to die than for the Federation to have to make a decision or work a little harder.
This will certainly be an agree to disagree moment, which is fine.
I have no problem with Star Trek addressing sex and there are times when it can do it quite well, when the actions are in line with their character, and the motivation feels like it comes from that character.
"Night in Sickbay" feels like it is forcing the Archer/T'Pol sexual tension on top of the already tense situation and doesn't feel like it flows from the character. "Out of nowhere" doesn't mean that it happened in the previous story, but it does mean that it should track with the character. I don't feel like it fits Archer's character. YMMV, obviously.
A quick example of how I felt is from the show JAG. One of the main characters was a Marine officer played by Catherine Bell and the love interest for the other main character. However, Bell's character got treated like such a sexual powerhouse that even the commanding officer started hitting on her! Even at a young age, it felt random, out of place, and forced to me.
So, Archer/T'Pol may work for some, but in "Night in Sickbay" it feels flat, and I'm not invested.
I understand that but would like to point out that perhaps this is partly due to us having become used to Trek being sitcom, at least in terms of main character interaction getting a history, ever since the later TNG seasons. In TOS there wasn't much of a "memory effect" when main characters interacted or character growth or something like that.
I'd also like to point out that T'Pol's attraction to Archer was explored in Twilight so the episode did not stand in a total vacuum.
Not that A Night in Sickbay was totally about Archer, in my opinion it was more about mixing realism with comedy. ENT is not as theatrical as TOS or TNG and precisely of that it is often considered to be far weaker. But it is definitely more realistic with its extrapolation of NASA designs and submarine like ship athmosphere.
That sexual tension among single arises in such a situation is to be expected so why not make an episode about it and why not make precisely the captain the guy who is brought out of balance by horniness, intolerable aliens and love for his pet?
Why not make the captain the fallible one especially (here comes the part why A Night in Sickbay also was about Archer) when the key idea of the Archer is that he is a regular guy who learns everything except for piloting on the job?
This is after all what many people, including me when I first watched the show, cannot stand about him: he has not gone through a holistic Starfleet Academy education, he is far less educated than Kirk and Picard, he is rash, follows his guts and so on.
I'd also like to point out that T'Pol's attraction to Archer was explored in Twilight so the episode did not stand in a total vacuum.
Not that A Night in Sickbay was totally about Archer, in my opinion it was more about mixing realism with comedy. ENT is not as theatrical as TOS or TNG and precisely of that it is often considered to be far weaker. But it is definitely more realistic with its extrapolation of NASA designs and submarine like ship athmosphere.
That sexual tension among single arises in such a situation is to be expected so why not make an episode about it and why not make precisely the captain the guy who is brought out of balance by horniness, intolerable aliens and love for his pet?
Why not make the captain the fallible one especially (here comes the part why A Night in Sickbay also was about Archer) when the key idea of the Archer is that he is a regular guy who learns everything except for piloting on the job?
This is after all what many people, including me when I first watched the show, cannot stand about him: he has not gone through a holistic Starfleet Academy education, he is far less educated than Kirk and Picard, he is rash, follows his guts and so on.
Here's my problem with Phlox's line in ANiSB: Archer and T'Pol had (IMHO) absolutley no onscreen chemistry. There was no hint at all to me that there might be. When Phlox mentioned sexual tension between them, I went 
?
What I realized was that the writers WANTED there to be sexual tension between them, but they were such bad writers that they couldn't figure out how to make it work. So they had Phlox TELL us that there was in the hopes of fooling us into thinking there was.
All that did for me was to drive my opinion of the show down yet another notch.
? What I realized was that the writers WANTED there to be sexual tension between them, but they were such bad writers that they couldn't figure out how to make it work. So they had Phlox TELL us that there was in the hopes of fooling us into thinking there was.
All that did for me was to drive my opinion of the show down yet another notch.
Last edited:
Agreed. There was obvious chemistry between Blalock and Trineer as far back as "Strange New World".
Yeah, my immediate reaction when they first started to rip into each other was "Get a room!"
Many others have noted my main objection of chemistry but I'll restate it. I don't get a sense of their being any chemistry beyond what we are told. In other words, what I'm told does not fit what I am seeing onscreen.
Secondly, I don't mind making Archer fallible, relatable or more human. That is why Kirk and Spock are so accessible to me, even when I was 8.
The problem with Archer is that the mistakes he makes are basic failures of diplomacy, augmented by the fact that he doesn't recognize his mistake. The sexual tension plot is just drop on top of a plot I already find confusing and irritating.
Just based upon the character that I knew (at the time) I did not buy in to the mistakes. There are mistakes to be made, and that's fine, let them happen. But, the basics of diplomacy is not inserting an unpredictable element in Porthos to a society who is easily offended.
Again, Phlox's comment about sexual tension is just out of left field, and feels forced.
Enterprise first episode of season three. The moment tpaul is mostly naked I'm thinking "So this is what it's come to. Let's alienate what little audience is left with needless T&A so that we can reach for another audience who will never give a crap about Trek or science fiction."
Of all the things that alienated me on Enterprise, seeing Blalock mostly naked is pretty far down the list.
Of all the things that alienated me on Enterprise, seeing Blalock mostly naked is pretty far down the list.
But it is still on the list! And that is the point. Obviously, Enterprise was a failure
I'm shocked, shocked to find needless T&A in a Star Trek show!
Last edited:
Even the supposed pinnacle of intellectual Star Trek, TMP, showed way more skin than strictly necessary to advance the story.
(That's not a low moment by the way, just perspective.)
(That's not a low moment by the way, just perspective.)
^ If you think TMP was in any way juvenile in its attitudes towards sex & skin and things like that, just read the novelization. Lordy...
The TMP novel is, thank God, the only Trek novel actually written by Roddenberry himself...and it shows.
The TMP novel is, thank God, the only Trek novel actually written by Roddenberry himself...and it shows.
You mean the shower robe and plastic hooker heels weren't necessary to the plot?!?
If only.
Similar threads
