I don't think knowing the percentage of humans in Starfleet is "crucial to understanding and appreciating ST." I was speaking more of incredibly basic things even hardcore fans seem not to understand.
Fundamentally Important Aspects of ST Even Fans Misunderstand
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
I don't think knowing the percentage of humans in Starfleet is "crucial to understanding and appreciating ST." I was speaking more of incredibly basic things even hardcore fans seem not to understand.
The nacelles are not rocket engines.
Kirk never said "Beam me up, Scotty".
There is no crew member named Captain Slog.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. -- DNA, H2G2
Kirk never said "Beam me up, Scotty".
There is no crew member named Captain Slog.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. -- DNA, H2G2
And yet, many Trek-BBS members want Starfleet to NOT be a military organization. I have read more than one poster who seem to think that anyone who is in or has served in the military is automatically a "warmonger".
I think it matters because it is a basis for how Starfleet "thinks" compared to how the Federation Council does. Most Federation members appear to be content to trade with others, and before the Federation was founded they might fight wars over resources on occasion. The may build colonies on nearby worlds, but they doesn't spread out to the far reaches of the galaxy like Humans tend to do. Humans want to go out and explore and learn, and they have an in-bred instinct to defend not just themselves but also all others in their community. Individuals from non-human worlds can share these traits and thus are also drawn to Starfleet, but I feel humans are simply more likely to serve.
Last edited:
Have you? That is a rather large generalisation on their behalf then.
It's possible for a well respected character to say something and be wrong, inaccurate or completely clueless on what they're talking about. Even if they're speaking in a authoritative way.
Even by the time of the later 24th century, the majority of starships are not well species integrated, despite what some of the fan fiction and novels would lead us to believe.
In addition to there being no money, there also are no toilets. Socially evolved Humanity doesn't poop.
Secretly, Eileen Roddenberry was the creative force behind Star Trek, but it being the 1960's Gene took the credit.
What lines do you base this on? If you're going by number of actors and extras, you're exhibiting one "Fundamentally Important Aspect of ST Even Fans Misunderstand" that I'd like to mention. Namely that of the effect of budgets.
At the end of the day, it's a TV show/movie. They try to present to the best of their abilities the ideas they espouse, but they can only get so far as the money permits. This is why the Klingons looked different in TOS. This is why different races use the same ships and why there aren't as wide a variety of ships (in DS9's battle scenes for example) as there should be realistically. This is why the Borg never attacked en masse even on the big screen. I think if money were no issue, you'd see hundreds more humanoid and non-humanoid background characters in corridors, on the promenade, etc, to say nothing of seeing a non-humanoid series regular. Spock was an elf; Data an android; Odo a shapeshifter; the Doctor a hologram; more $$$ and Phlox may have been all tentacles.
Trek has tried to get around the budget issue by saying that there are whole ships with mostly non-human crews in the way the Enterprise often appears to be mostly human. (e.g. TOS' USS Intrepid, and DS9's USS T'Kumbra.) It's also tried suggesting (pretty late in the game, but points for a good episode) that there was a race of Proto-Humanoids that seeded much of this part of the galaxy to explain away their abundance (TNG's "The Chase").
We should not "let the tail wag the dog." Certainly the writers rarely think as some fans do when they're writing and appreciating the episodes. They have their real-world filters on, and they adjust for budgets.
The D had a bathroom on the bridge.
First and foremost: Star Trek, at its core, is entertainment. It's an adventure show that occasionally had some thoughtful ideas about society or allegories about current affairs thrown in.
It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, and it's not a "visionary template to a brighter future" to be taken seriously. That was Gene's attempt at gaining significance and immortality after the syndication craze hit in the 70's. It's a wonderful, fun entertainment franchise. And that's it.
I think THAT's the most misunderstood thing about Star Trek.
It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, and it's not a "visionary template to a brighter future" to be taken seriously. That was Gene's attempt at gaining significance and immortality after the syndication craze hit in the 70's. It's a wonderful, fun entertainment franchise. And that's it.
I think THAT's the most misunderstood thing about Star Trek.
that Klingons are just a violent race, when really all we see is the warrior class of Klingons, we don't see the scientists and poets, in the same way as we dont really know what life is like outside of starfleet. And Worf made a direct reference to poetry being a part of Klingon courtship during 'The Dauphin' so there is defo Klingon poetry.
Klingons definitely are prideful and respect strength, but not just physical strength,
Klingons definitely are prideful and respect strength, but not just physical strength,
1. Agree completely.
2. I've never heard anyone with this opinion. I see the opposite... many fans who think Vulcans feel things just like humans, the only real difference being that they keep it to themselves, and don't let it show. Being a Vulcan apparently just means being sort of snooty and dignified.
----------------
Fans usually agree that Vulcans repress their emotions, but often without a real idea what that means. They're not just keeping a level head. Vulcans REALLY repress/suppress emotions, impulses, urges.... HARD. SO hard that it becomes to a large extent automatic... not second nature to divorce from feeling, but first nature.
2.a. I have. I have had to explain to people that Vulcans aren't soulless automatons.
This would be my #2 choice for most misunderstood thing. The old "It's just a TV show" attitude, and I always wonder why anyone feels any need to discuss something that's just some diversion. You don't discuss mere entertainment... you get out the popcorn, sit in the easy chair, and get entertained.
------------------------
Fans do get too reverential. I'll go along with that part. I will say, however, that ST is ideas first, adventure second, as icing on the cake. It's a great example of television as art, made by people who cared very much, and felt they were doing something that mattered.
--------------------
Don't worship it. Realize it was made by other mere humans like yourselves. Relate it to life, let it excite the imagination, but don't put the makers on a pedestal and think they have holy scriptures you must spread or protect.
------------------
Please don 't undervalue it either. When I talk about ST being about "ideas", I mean science fiction concepts as well as anything about life or society. SF ideas matter. More than entertainment. You don't take on a difficult show like ST (in th e 60s anyway) having just entertainment and dollar signs in mind. You don't pick a genre, SF, that's respected by nearly nobody.
1. It's okay to make changes to Star Trek. Without retroactive continuity, our heroes would be agents of UESPA and Space Central. Spock would be a Vulcanian. The Enterprise would fly at "time warp factors" and women wouldn't be allowed to command starships.
2. Writers and producers pick and choose which parts of previous Treks to incorporate into their own and disregard the rest. The Trek universe holds together in broad strokes only.
3. Trek is not hard science fiction. Yes it tries (sometimes more than others) to use real scientific concepts, but it also has episodes where the crew are made into children by a transporter malfunction, or any number of magical technologies as realistic as Narnia.
2. Writers and producers pick and choose which parts of previous Treks to incorporate into their own and disregard the rest. The Trek universe holds together in broad strokes only.
3. Trek is not hard science fiction. Yes it tries (sometimes more than others) to use real scientific concepts, but it also has episodes where the crew are made into children by a transporter malfunction, or any number of magical technologies as realistic as Narnia.
I agree with this. And it seems like the higher in the ranks you go, the more humans you see. I've seen a few token Vulcan Admirals, but the rest were all human. That seems to speak to humans being a larger-than-normal portion of Starfleet.
Now I'm seeing Lili Von Shtupp in a Mongol helmet!
Just think "Genghis Khan," not "Madeleine Kahn."
But it was just a couch, a condom machine and two wash basins, no toilets.
Similar threads
