Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

[yotsuya]

I think it's pretty clear that, at least in the TOS era, the Federation uses money within itself, if not routinely, then in conjunction with the operation of Starfleet. Here are two more examples.

From "Errand of Mercy" [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/27.htm]:

KIRK: The Federation has invested a great deal of money in our training. They're about due for a small return. We have two hours with which to do it in.​

From "The Apple" [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/38.htm]:

KIRK: Trying to get yourself killed. Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?
SPOCK: One hundred twenty two thousand two hundred
KIRK: Never mind. But thanks. Kaplan, take the post.​

Those quotes only indicate that they account for it, but not that they use it in any meaningful way, like to buy food or pay rent, or anything we have to use it for on a daily basis today.

 

[Tuskin38]

Those quotes only indicate that they account for it, but not that they use it in any meaningful way, like to buy food or pay rent, or anything we have to use it for on a daily basis today.

Goalposts have been moved.

 

[Greg Cox]

Or the 1958 film The Defiant Ones, in which Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis were two very different fugitives shackled together who must grudgingly cooperate with each other due to their circumstance.

And even more so, Hell in the Pacific (1968): American soldier and Japanese soldier stranded together on a Pacific Island during World War II, forced to work together to survive, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_the_Pacific

 

[Nerys Myk]

Like I said, if Chang had hair you would see no ridges. Those ridges would be under the hairstyles of TOS Klingons.

Would they? The hairlines of TOS Klingons vary from the pompadour of Koloth to the thinning of Kor to the bald of Bob, the discount Klingon. Koloth could possibly hide some ridges, but others could not. Chang's ridges go almost to the top of his eybrow. You'd have to be Sean Hannity to hid those with hair It's a stretch to claim some correlation between Chang's light ridges and reconciling the TOS Klingons with the ridged Klingons. All the Klingons in TUC had "lighter" makeup than what we saw in TNG. Probably a choice by the director so not to "hide" his actors.

And yes I read Justman's memo and and you seem to be quoting from the CBS article that circulated it rather than the memo itself. He was very specific that the Starships (the Constitution Class as it is now known) were the only ones to have the arrow insignia

Nope, I looked for the actual memo and found it.

 

[Noname Given]

Like I said, if Chang had hair you would see no ridges. Those ridges would be under the hairstyles of TOS Klingons.

Yeah - no. In TOS S2 - "The Trouble With Tribles"; Chekov tried to punch out a Klingon who was 100% bald on top with a little hair on the sides and had NO RIDGES whatsoever.

 

[cooleddie74]

Augment Klingons have no traces of ridges. That was pretty well-established in both ENT and TOS.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Like I said, if Chang had hair you would see no ridges. Those ridges would be under the hairstyles of TOS Klingons.

I'm fine with Roddenberry's explanation regarding the changes to the Klingons in TMP -- which is that even though the makeup for TMP (and onward) made the Klingons look different than they did in TOS, we are to ignore the that make-up difference and just use our imaginations to tell ourselves that, in-universe, TOS Klingons always looked like TMP Klingons.

That is, he acknowledged that even though the makeup looks different, we are to imagine that there is no difference.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm fine with Roddenberry's explanation regarding the changes to the Klingons in TMP -- which is that even though the makeup for TMP (and onward) made the Klingons look different than they did in TOS, we are to ignore the that make-up difference and just use our imaginations to tell ourselves that, in-universe, TOS Klingons always looked like TMP Klingons.

That is, he acknowledge that even though the makeup looks different,we are to imagine that there is no difference.

Exactly. All theatrical productions require a certain degree of imaginative participation on the part of the audience. The whole idea is to trick our brains into thinking what we see is "real," at least for the duration of the performance, even though we know intellectually that "Spock" is actually an actor named Leonard Nimoy wearing rubber ears. We're supposed to meet the story halfway by willingly suspending our disbelief . . . .

 

[SG-17]

This argument over money in the Federation is going to be Star Trek's homoousion/arian split in 100 years, isn't it?

 

[XCV330]

Have we evolved ?

i have to go instruct some people who don't know how to love. I'll let you know when i get back.

 

[Dale Sams]

To further my idea that PIC should show that the Feds economic ideas have collapsed, they should establish that a Ferengai 'economic liaison' has been placed on every starfleet ship.

Each one would be played as very helpful, a little compassionate and a little more smug.

 

[1001001]

 

[AlanC9]

I'm fine with Roddenberry's explanation regarding the changes to the Klingons in TMP -- which is that even though the makeup for TMP (and onward) made the Klingons look different than they did in TOS, we are to ignore the that make-up difference and just use our imaginations to tell ourselves that, in-universe, TOS Klingons always looked like TMP Klingons.

That is, he acknowledged that even though the makeup looks different, we are to imagine that there is no difference.

Yeah, but didn't DS9 blow that interpretation up?

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, but didn't DS9 blow that interpretation up?

DS9 started the fire...and ENT poured on the gasoline.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, but didn't DS9 blow that interpretation up?

They didn't blow it up. They just kinda winked at it.

Frankly, that would have been good enough for me. Never needed an actual "explanation" for the change in the makeup.

 

[The Wormhole]

DS9 started the fire...

They didn't start the fire. It's been always burning since the world's been turning.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They didn't start the fire. It's been always burning since the world's been turning.

It's true. And Kahless threw his hair in it or something

 

[fireproof78]

It's true. And Kahless threw his hair in it or something

And that's how we got the planet Venus.

 

[Danja]

Exactly. All theatrical productions require a certain degree of imaginative participation on the part of the audience. The whole idea is to trick our brains into thinking what we see is "real," at least for the duration of the performance, even though we know intellectually that "Spock" is actually an actor named Leonard Nimoy wearing rubber ears. We're supposed to meet the story halfway by willingly suspending our disbelief . . . .

The same can be said of Jeri Ryan and Seven's eyepiece. ("It looks different from Voyager!" )

 

[JD]

Like I said, if Chang had hair you would see no ridges. Those ridges would be under the hairstyles of TOS Klingons.

And yes I read Justman's memo and and you seem to be quoting from the CBS article that circulated it rather than the memo itself. He was very specific that the Starships (the Constitution Class as it is now known) were the only ones to have the arrow insignia. Outside those couple of uses, everyone we see that we know works for the fleet and not stationed on a ship wears the flower emblem (regardless of rank). That young woman in the last image is likely regularly assigned to a Starship that is in for service and is either on temporary assignment or there for some other purpose. In reality those images from Court Martial were just recycled Enterprise crew uniforms and not a deliberate show of what emblem the production team intended them to wear. We actually never see another ship crew member in any other episodes sporting the arrow. And we only see Decker, Tracey, and Tracey's CMO sporting a different emblem in TOS.

The Antares crew was cited in Justman's memo to cement that the arrow was only for the elite 12 (or so) Starships. But the belief that each ship should have it's own emblem was born out when Enterprise gave the Defiant its own emblem and basically cemented that idea that Decker and Tracey's emblems were not mistakes. Canon is not based on the intent of the producers, but by what ended up on screen. So this conversation is based on 4 episodes, three of which support multiple ship emblems for Constitution Class ships and one episode that shows the arrow on other ships. The converstion wasn't ended by Justman's memo. It was only circulated to support the use of it as the fleet wide emblem in Discovery (which the memo actually does not support and which isn't canon by TOS, TAS, TMP, or ENT). The TOS Starfleet wide emblem is the other one that we see on the side of the TOS Enterprise and on the wall behind so many flag officers. And the flag officers and midshipmen wear flower insignias and not the arrow. Yet another way that Discovery has tried to rewrite canon.

There are several possible explanations that can make the three TOS episodes and the one ENT episode agree. But the one suggested by the Discovery producers is not one of them and is not supported by anything made prior to 1982's TWOK when the arrow did become fleet wide and at all levels and on all ships. Prior to that, every non-starship character in a standard uniform wears a flower emblem and there are 3 TOS starship emblems and one from ENT and one from TAS. This continued through the Epsilon 9 crew in TMP.

I realize all this is probably true, but at this point the arrowhead has become such a big part of the franchise that there was no way they weren't going to use it for Discovery. It's a retcon, but an understandable one that I am perfectly fine with.