What is THE Worst continuity error in Trek history..?!

[BillJ]

Ah, are you presenting yourself as some sort of Mensa with that statement? I, just as anyone else that has paid any attention to this matter, is fully aware of the numbers game, which has been posited ad infinitum. I wouldn't be making these statements if I didn't know the implications of such a reproductive course. The point is that obviously Ocampan females are not limited to one child, even if there's only one child bearing period, and that not only such a condition is never explicitly or implicitly stated, no one among the movers and shakers or scribes affiliated with the series, would be moronic or negligent enough to not recognize that reality, hence no actual mention of a single child cap.

KES: But you, you don't understand. The elogium occurs only once. If I am ever going to have a child, it has to be now!

Not children or a litter. A child.

 

[Scotchy]

Shatner's hair?

 

[Drone]

Elogium said:
KES: But you, you don't understand. The elogium occurs only once. If I am ever going to have a child, it has to be now!

Not children or a litter. A child.

You're conveniently neglecting, purposefully I rather think, what was stated just a few pages ago to refute that simple turn of phrase that she used. Just because Ocampan females can have more than one child, doesn't mean that all of them would assume that they will. To just say, "have a child", is more indicative of the sense that the female has that it's possible she will have no children, unless the period of the elogium is put to its proper use. In fact, for all we know about their physiology, they might have multiple births that aren't twins, triplets, etc. Kes may want to have children, but for that to happen, she has to have a child first. C'mon man, I know you're better than playing faux syllogistic games to prove a point that on the face of it, is absurd.

 

[BillJ]

You're conveniently neglecting, purposefully I rather think, what was stated just a few pages ago to refute that simple turn of phrase that she used. Just because Ocampan females can have more than one child, doesn't mean that all of them would assume that they will. To just say, "have a child", is more indicative of the sense that the female has that it's possible she will have no children, unless the period of the elogium is put to its proper use. In fact, for all we know about their physiology, they might have multiple births that aren't twins, triplets, etc. Kes may want to have children, but for that to happen, she has to have a child first. C'mon man, I know you're better than playing faux syllogistic games to prove a point that on the face of it, is absurd.

If your species regularly has multiple children during its one fertile cycle, then "children" would be more appropriate. And the Ocampa females, by and large, would need to be having multiple children. For the species to be viable.

But that wasn't the rub, the rub was how the writers describe the Ocampa and their procreation, which was claimed to be "short sighted". It continues to be short-sighted. You can come up with explanations to fill the void, we all do it where Star Trek is concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that the writers didn't think their writings on the Ocampa through.

 

[BillJ]

KES: It's, it's the mitral sac. It's, it's where my child would grow. I'm going through the elogium, the time of change, when, when my body prepares for fertilisation.

KES: Am I really ready to have a child? Am I prepared to give that child the attention and devotion it deserves?

For a species that would need to have multiple children per mother to be stable, never once does Kes mention "children" in relation to her situation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ She doesn't need to. It can be inferred. It's the only thing that makes any logical sense.

 

[BillJ]

Seems that people here weren't the only one's to notice the short-sightedness of the writers...

To explain how the Ocampan population could be maintained despite each female only giving birth once, the Star Trek novella "Places of Exile" (in Infinity's Prism) suggests that twin and triplet births are common among Ocampa. In the acknowledgments, author Christopher L. Bennett credits Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia website for the idea.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ocampa

 

[Drone]

If your species regularly has multiple children during its one fertile cycle, then "children" would be more appropriate. And the Ocampa females, by and large, would need to be having multiple children. For the species to be viable.
But that wasn't the rub, the rub was how the writers describe the Ocampa and their procreation, which was claimed to be "short sighted". It continues to be short-sighted. You can come up with explanations to fill the void, we all do it where Star Trek is concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that the writers didn't think their writings on the Ocampa through.

There's no question that the idea of being able to conceive children during one brief period of a female's life, is an odd outlier, even strange. But some such concepts could be called innovative, given the implications that it might carry for how a culture with that reproductive reality, might choose to view the role of females in the society, the vitality and stability of marriage, how the culture views and organizes its utilization of time, etc. Now while certainly interesting, I'm not claiming that the concept or execution of this idea by Voyager's "creative" team, envisioned any such considerations, just an idea that probably seemed appropriate in a sense, for a species that lived for such a short time.

However, to meet the criteria necessary to call everyone involved in the idea and it's scant significance to the series, short sighted, one would really need to be able to categorically cite something that actually and unequivocally states, and enters as canon, that the result of this physiological feature of the Ocampans is only one child per female. Such evidence is simply not present. Kes may refer to a child, the sense of which you don't care to accept, but she never says that she or Ocamapans generally, are limited to that number. It just isn't there. So, call it undeveloped if you like, or wasted, but short sighted as equaling something logically impossible that everyone just let slip past them, no.

For a species that would need to have multiple children per mother to be stable, never once does Kes mention "children" in relation to her situation.

She doesn't represent the entire Ocampan culture and I really don't think that whatever feelings she has about her fecundity is based on a need that she perceives that the fate of the species will be determined by her decision. It's strictly personal, unless you can find some dialogue of hers that indicates that she sees herself as the Ocampans' savior. That would be rather nonsensical.

Seems that people here weren't the only one's to notice the short-sightedness of the writers...

To explain how the Ocampan population could be maintained despite each female only giving birth once, the Star Trek novella "Places of Exile" (in Infinity's Prism) suggests that twin and triplet births are common among Ocampa. In the acknowledgments, author Christopher L. Bennett credits Bernd Schneider's Ex Astris Scientia website for the idea.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ocampa

As the only logical means of elaborating on a tenet, that while left lacking what one would consider proper definition, isn't as actually articulated, absolutely contradictory and fallacious, the idea of twin and triple births has occurred to many fans over time, the vast majority of whom, I would suspect have never read Christopher's fine work or are regular habitues of Ex Astris Scientia. Oh, and the fact that this obvious answer was posited by someone at that fascinating site or then subsequently implemented in a thoughtful work of fiction, still doesn't make this strange stab by the show runners and the writers short sighted, just laxly follwed through on. For Voyager, been there, seen that..

 

[Nyotarules]

I suppose its similar to the fanon concept Vulcans only have sex every seven years or/and can only can make babies during Ponn Farr. I am no biologist but that would make a planet of billions of Vulcans hard to accomplish. Or am I incorrect?

 

[Longinus]

I suppose its similar to the fanon concept Vulcans only have sex every seven years or/and can only can make babies during Ponn Farr. I am no biologist but that would make a planet of billions of Vulcans hard to accomplish. Or am I incorrect?

I'm not biologist either, but I think you are. Vulcans live really long so probably are (even without help of modern technology) fertile much longer than humans. A female Vulcan probably has about ten Pon Farrs during her life. (Though Pon Farr is a stupid concept and I hope it would never have been introduced.)

 

[Nyotarules]

Ponn Farr yes 'Amok Time' great episode , it highlights how aliens Vulcans really are. I dislike that canon concept that females get it, why should they, they have different hormones lol

 

[fireproof78]

Well, since Pon Far is a byproduct of the structured and logical ways of the Vulcans why shouldn't Vulcan ladies get it?

Hormones may be different in terms of concentrations between males and females but there are male hormones in females and vice versa. Obviously, the impact on Vulcan females is likely different, but I don't mind the idea that they have a Pon Far as well.

 

[Kor]

Maybe the caretaker screwed with the Ocampas' genetics.

Kor

 

[Nyotarules]

Well, since Pon Far is a byproduct of the structured and logical ways of the Vulcans why shouldn't Vulcan ladies get it?

Hormones may be different in terms of concentrations between males and females but there are male hormones in females and vice versa. Obviously, the impact on Vulcan females is likely different, but I don't mind the idea that they have a Pon Far as well.

Ponn Farr is biological, it predates the time of Surak, it has nothing to do with the change of philosophy. Spock says Vulcans killed for their mates, society came up with the structure (koon ut kal if fee) we see in Amok Time once they 'converted' to logic. Better to have organised executions/fights to the death than rampant men killing others for the hottest woman.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

IIRC, there was never any implication that Vulcans could ONLY have sex and produce children during pon farr. Only that during this time, they MUST do it. No episode or film ever implied that they couldn't do it at any other time.

 

[Nyotarules]

IIRC, there was never any implication that Vulcans could ONLY have sex and produce children during pon farr. Only that during this time, they MUST do it. No episode or film ever implied that they couldn't do it at any other time.

I believe ST ENT 'Fusion' had one of the rogue Vulcans (Kov?) either answering yes when asked by Reed/Trip if they only had sex every seven years or telling them they only had sex every seven years and they were trying to speed up the cycle. I did a facepalm at that scene. Years later T'Pol scratched her 'seven year itch' in Harbinger....(rolls eyes)

 

[Nyotarules]

I think every future Star Trek show should have a Star Trek consultant.

 

[fireproof78]

Ponn Farr is biological, it predates the time of Surak, it has nothing to do with the change of philosophy. Spock says Vulcans killed for their mates, society came up with the structure (koon ut kal if fee) we see in Amok Time once they 'converted' to logic. Better to have organised executions/fights to the death than rampant men killing others for the hottest woman.

Hmm, I can't see to find an indication one way or the other. I seem to recall, but this might be from a book I read and not canon, that Pon Farr was instituted as part of the Surakian reform.

Also, of interest to me, was D.C. Fontana's comments on the matter:

Vulcans mate normally any time they want to. However, every seven years you do the ritual, the ceremony, the whole thing. The biological urge. You must, but any other time is any other emotion—humanoid emotion—when you're in love. When you want to, you know when the urge is there, you do it. This every-seven-years business was taken too literally by too many people who don't stop and understand. We didn't mean it only every seven years. I mean, every seven years would be a little bad, and it would not explain the Vulcans of many different ages which are not seven years apart. - D. C. Fontana (Edward Gross, Mark E. Altman, Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, Little Brown & Co, 1995. p. 53)

Make of that what you will.

 

[Longinus]

Ponn Farr yes 'Amok Time' great episode , it highlights how aliens Vulcans really are.

I prefer the lack of emotions to show how alien Vulcans are. Duelling to death and winning women like trophies. Good job Vulcans, very logical.

Not to mention that whole thing never made any sense. The whole concept of dying of blue balls is bloody absurd. I guess it sucks to be a widower on Vulcan. Or maybe they duel each other to death so that at least some of them get to survive...

 

[Longinus]

You must, but any other time is any other emotion—humanoid emotion—when you're in love. When you want to, you know when the urge is there, you do it.

But they don't have emotions!

Only thing about the whole Pon Farr business I liked was the fact that it implied that Vulcans only had sex very rarely. I think they consider the whole thing distasteful. Compared to us sex obsessed humans that is alien.