Fundamentally Important Aspects of ST Even Fans Misunderstand

[JeffinOakland]

Over the last few weeks, I've noticed that even some longtime forum posters misunderstand these two things that are, I think, crucial to understanding and appreciating ST.

1. ST is not a utopia. It presents a hopeful future where most of today's problems have been resolved and humanity has evolved to tackle other problems.
2. Vulcans are not emotionless. They repress their emotions and some are better at it than others.

What other fundamentally important aspects of ST crucial to a basic understanding of ST do you see fans misunderstanding?

 

[C.E. Evans]

That Starfleet isn't the U.S. Navy. It observes some traditions and customs, but ignores just as many as it really is a different kind of navy.

 

[Timo]

The heroes aren't easygoing adventurers. They enforce for the establishment.

And Klingons aren't superior warriors. People just keep mishearing "worrier".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

There are too many to count, but, in relation to the recent ship designs...

1). Starfleet ships aren't common-as-dirt like WW2 fighter planes, they are each an Apollo-mission level undertaking

2). Just because they look more detailed, shiny or rounded, does not make them more futuristic (TOS ships would crump ENT ones)

3). Ships do not gradually progress into their next iteration like an iPhone or Audi; form follows function - they could be unrecognizable

4). The Kelvin Timeline is currently running several years ahead of TOS; ships look different due to Nero's intrusion

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Greg Cox]

"Canon" is not spelled "cannon."

 

[urbandefault]

1. Star Trek isn't real.
2. Just because a character appears once, it doesn't mean that the character will become a regular part of the cast.
3. When in doubt, see #1.

 

[RandyS]

The only vision Rodenberry had was dollar signs.

 

[Ghel]

Just because a character makes a one time throwaway statement doesn't mean that it should be canon or strictly followed. Similarly, if a future (or past) episode contradicts a throwaway statement by a character doesn't create a continuity error. People inflate things and get things wrong all of the time. Even history books contain errors which do not destroy the continuity of reality.

 

[JeffinOakland]

The science isn't real. Stop trying to figure it out.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Just because the same actor played two different characters doesn't mean the first one didn't really die. It also doesn't mean they're (secretly) family.

 

[-Brett-]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Some fans act like this is an ideal actually being advocated by the series and its creators, therefore something all fans should be expected to believe as well. No. It's just a thing one fictional culture believes. Human protagonists invariably reject it in favor of the "leave no one behind" school of thought.

On a similar note, "infinite diversity in infinite combinations". If this one ever made it on screen at all, I don't remember it. Yet some fans act like this is what Star Trek is all about and expect all other fans to buy into it as well. Not saying this ideal is wrong (not saying it isn't either), but it's sure as hell not an essential part of Star Trek.

The fact that it's attributed to the most homogenous, least diverse culture I could possibly imagine makes it even sillier.

 

[T'Arwen]

On a similar note, "infinite diversity in infinite combinations". If this one ever made it on screen at all, I don't remember it. Yet some fans act like this is what Star Trek is all about and expect all other fans to buy into it as well. Not saying this ideal is wrong (not saying it isn't either), but it's sure as hell not an essential part of Star Trek.

The fact that it's attributed to the most homogenous, least diverse culture I could possibly imagine makes it even sillier.

The word IDIC got its first mention in Is There No Truth in Beauty but they didn't go into the meaning. The only time I know where someone talks about the meaning is in The Forge, when Syrran does it. But yes, most Vulcans are big hypocrites for having it as an important symbol but not embracing it in practice. I do find it a very important Star Trek concept though, even if Rodenberry only wanted to make money off it.
http://www.trektoday.com/reviews/tos/is_there_in_truth_no_beauty.shtml

Just because an event/species doesn't get mentioned in the future doesn't mean there's a continuity problem. We're not talking about Tinker Bell and fairies people! I don't know about the rest of the world but most Americans don't know jack shit about history. So the odds are that people who bitch about the Xindi are probably not talking about real history at the dinner table. Did Alexander Hamilton disappear from the timeline before the musical put the spotlight on him?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ctually-know-less-you-think-180955431/?no-ist
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43397386/...dont-know-much-about-us-history/#.V5zy4KKo3hU

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The word IDIC got its first mention in Is There No Truth in Beauty but they didn't go into the meaning. The only time I know where someone talks about the meaning is in The Forge, when Syrran does it.

Actually, they did:

MIRANDA JONES: I understand, Mister Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
SPOCK: And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.

Kirk also quizzes the giant clone of Spock—yes, you read that right, do not adjust your sets—about it in "The Infinite Vulcan" (TAS):

KIRK: If you have Spock's mind, you'll know the Vulcan symbol called the IDIC.
GIANT SPOCK: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, symbolizing the elements that create truth and beauty.
KIRK: Could an army of Spocks impose peace and Phylosian philosophy on any other beings in defiance of the IDIC concept?
GIANT SPOCK: I do not believe so.

And a young Tuvok and his Vulcan Master discuss it in "Gravity" (VGR):

MASTER: The Kol-Ut-Shan, a cornerstone of our beliefs.
TUVOK: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I know all about Vulcan philosophies.

And in "The Andorian Incident" (ENT) Phlox and T'Pol do as well:

PHLOX: I confess I feel awkward on this ship myself, sometimes, out of place. But what is that Vulcan motto? Infinite diversity...
T'POL: ...in infinite combinations.
PHLOX: And what is diversity but a celebration of differences?

 

[T'Arwen]

I watched Is there No Truth in Beauty a month ago and totally forgot, haha. I'll add some dialogue from The Forge to the mix.

AREV: Did your mother tell you the story?
T'POL: Of the IDIC?
AREV: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination. Words that are a mere shadow of its true meaning. (she hands it over) Surak tells us that the story of the IDIC has no end. But it begins here, at Mount Seleya.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

1. Threads are this are not an excuse to put down and stereotype other fans.

2. Money is not illegal in the Federation, it's just not officially recognized by it.

3. If two things from two different episodes contradict each other, there is not some unifying explanation that makes them both correct. The writer just didn't want to throw away his great idea because it contradicts a small detail of a previous episode.

 

[JeffinOakland]

1. Threads are this are not an excuse to put down and stereotype other fans.

2. Money is not illegal in the Federation, it's just not officially recognized by it.

3. If two things from two different episodes contradict each other, there is not some unifying explanation that makes them both correct. The writer just didn't want to throw away his great idea because it contradicts a small detail of a previous episode.

3.a. (if I may). Scriptwriters don't have a photographic memory of every last second of ST that already exists. In other words; people make honest mistakes.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

1) Starfleet is a military organization. It's just a more casual one than the ones we have today.

2) The history of the ST universe is not necessarily the same as ours, what with the Eugenics Wars in 1990s and all.

3) Canon doesn't really matter unless you're working on the shows or tie-ins.

4) Kirk is not the horndog rule breaker that some folks make him out to be. Romantically, he was more of a serial monogamist than a love-em-and-leave-em type. And he typically broke the rules as a last option, not the first.

5) TOS did not have "cardboard sets." They were television sets that were built to last, so they used plywood just like the other shows.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Canon is not the same as continuity. Certain events depicted in canon contradict each other. One doesn't need to postulate in-universe explanations such as temporal anomalies to explain these discrepancies, because it's just a TV show.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Starfleet isn't human dominated, we've just seen a handful of crewmembers from a handful of ships. With 150+ aliens in the Federation, humans make up only a small percentage of Starfleet personnel.

 

[Sgt_G]

Starfleet isn't human dominated, we've just seen a handful of crewmembers from a handful of ships. With 150+ aliens in the Federation, humans make up only a small percentage of Starfleet personnel.

I disagree with this idea. Humans are only a small percent of the Federation's population, yes, true. However, humans seem to be the only ones, or one of the few species, that have gone out in-mass to explore / exploit and colonize the galaxy. In my view, humans make up the lion's share of Starfleet personnel. In Kirk's time, at least 50% if not 75%-80%. In Picard's time, they are still at least one-third if not half of Starfleet.