What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[RichT]

Today, yes. Back in the 1990s? Maybe.

This isn't a new idea. Mission critical computers have been able to do this since the 1960s. For example, the space shuttle had five IBM AP-101 avionics computers (four live, one backup), and they would "coin toss" if two of the live systems disagreed with the other two. The AP-101 hardware was designed in the late 60s and the shuttle's software was designed in the early 70s.

 

[fireproof78]

This isn't a new idea. Mission critical computers have been able to do this since the 1960s. For example, the space shuttle had five IBM AP-101 avionics computers (four live, one backup), and they would "coin toss" if two of the live systems disagreed with the other two. The AP-101 hardware was designed in the late 60s and the shuttle's software was designed in the early 70s.

I didn't think it was a new idea. I should be specific that would it be known to the general public. But, you have a good point. I just don't think Star Trek would ever use it.

 

[Paul755]

The ship class appears in the Star Trek: Picard Countdown comic, though not as the Enterprise. Doesn't make it fully canon, but at least officially authorized decaf semi-canon-ish, or something like that.

I haven’t liked almost any of the STO ship designs. Especially this Enterprise. So the further they keep this from being an onscreen thing the better.

 

[Oddish]

The worst part of Latent Image was how they used those flashbacks in a vain attempt to makes us feel like the Redshirt the Doctor didn't save was an actual character or something.
Would have been more effective if they had introduced her as a minor character four or five episodes beforehand.

Yes and no. If I remember right, the fact that doctor had no idea who this person was (and neither did we) was part of what made the Doctor's unexpected memory of her such a mystery. If we'd known her, we'd have cared about her more (especially if she'd started to form close friendships), but there wouldn't have been the twilight zone factor of this ensign who wasn't supposed to exist.

Still, if they wanted to go that way, they should have focused the whole episode on the mysterious memory, and only devoted the denoument to why the Doctor's memory was erased. He accepts their decision to erase it again, and that's that.

 

[Maurice]

^I had no idea I was meant to dislike STV until I found fandom. Still think the fireside chat is one of the best scenes from the films. Been a long time since I've watched any of the original flicks.

Its main problem is the story...it can't commit to the key themes it purports to want to explore. Cult leader who twists people with his power? Tossed aside as soon as they reveal he wants to find God. "Because it's there" metaphor? You could stretch to say that Kirk decides to investigate the God planet "because it's there" but that's stretching it. There are no personal conflicts, other than Bones and Spock rejecting Sybok's manipulation. Kirk has no moral quandary or crisis. It's some cute business surrounded by a bunch of "things happen" plotting with all the depth of a Martian Flat Cat™. Layer on some cringey "comedy" and woeful VFX and you have a mess that's saved only by the sheer charisma of the leads.




Not that I have an opinion on this or anything...

 

[UssGlenn]

Seems rather strange that the EMH's basic software wouldn't include an "if you need to make a decision but all data points are equal, toss a coin" subroutine. We have mission-critical software that does this today.

It just might have never come up in testing. It's not like you can deliberately fatally injure 2 people exactly the same way. Even if you tried you's probably fail and one would end up with a .01% better chance of survival, remember the EMH can parse these things out to the decimal. The Doctor just came upon a extremely unlikely situation where they actually were equal.

 

[fireproof78]

It just might have never come up in testing. It's not like you can deliberately fatally injure 2 people exactly the same way. Even if you tried you's probably fail and one would end up with a .01% better chance of survival, remember the EMH can parse these things out to the decimal. The Doctor just came upon a extremely unlikely situation where they actually were equal.

Awww...but we injured all those test subjects for nothing?

 

[UssGlenn]

I wonder if they considered having Harry have a slightly worse chance of survival and the Doctor deciding to work on him because they were friends. But perhaps that ethical violation is too real world and not sci-fi enough.

 

[RichT]

It just might have never come up in testing. It's not like you can deliberately fatally injure 2 people exactly the same way. Even if you tried you's probably fail and one would end up with a .01% better chance of survival, remember the EMH can parse these things out to the decimal. The Doctor just came upon a extremely unlikely situation where they actually were equal.

As I said before, we've already had mission-critical computer software for decades that will resort to a "coin toss" when it can't decide a course of action based on comparing data alone, precisely to prevent it getting stuck in a loop or failing. If the Doctor were a prototype I might buy it, but he isn't. He's a production model, and there's 678 of them installed in at least three classes of starship as standard.

 

[eschaton]

Here's an opinion that might put me outside the Trek mainstream:

I don't give a shit about any of the ship designs, and I find it odd how much people are invested in them. I watch the show for the characters and the story scenarios, not for imaginary tech.

I don't completely mind that stuff in say a hard-SF novel where they go into orbital trajectories and the like, but with imaginary fantasy ships, it's not like the design tells us anything real about how it performs. It's just an artist's idea. And honestly, most visual art is kinda a big shrug for me.

 

[Maurice]

* One example I get from my father all the time is the observation that characters are speaking with bad grammar. That's a whole other tomato.

Grammar changes. The way he spoke in his youth would probably have been considered bad grammar to generations preceding his.

Humans getting attached to non-living objects is an actual thing that happens in reality.

Nah, that never happens.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's an opinion that might put me outside the Trek mainstream:

I don't give a shit about any of the ship designs, and I find it odd how much people are invested in them. I watch the show for the characters and the story scenarios, not for imaginary tech.

I don't completely mind that stuff in say a hard-SF novel where they go into orbital trajectories and the like, but with imaginary fantasy ships, it's not like the design tells us anything real about how it performs. It's just an artist's idea. And honestly, most visual art is kinda a big shrug for me.

Tangentially related (potentially) I do not consider ships characters. They can be interesting, well thought out designs, or just a set dressing. I too prefer characters or stories over imaginary tech. All the imaginary tech in the world will not make up for poor characters (see ENT).

 

[Oddish]

I wonder if they considered having Harry have a slightly worse chance of survival and the Doctor deciding to work on him because they were friends. But perhaps that ethical violation is too real world and not sci-fi enough.

That could have worked. Maybe Harry's chances of survival were 82.6%, and the redshirt ensign's were 82.8%, so the Doc "should" have saved her instead. Instead of facing a dilemma he wasn't programmed for, he faced ine that he was programmed for... and he chose wrong.

Honestly, it makes more sense that that would mess with the Doctor's holographic head.

 

[Orphalesion]

Tangentially related (potentially) I do not consider ships characters. They can be interesting, well thought out designs, or just a set dressing. I too prefer characters or stories over imaginary tech. All the imaginary tech in the world will not make up for poor characters (see ENT).

Wait...there's people who consider the ships "characters"?
....how?

Or is that meant to be in a very, very, very metaphorical sense, like how in Gormenghast the castle can be considered a metaphorical character?

 

[fireproof78]

Wait...there's people who consider the ships "characters"?
....how?

Or is that meant to be in a very, very, very metaphorical sense, like how in Gormenghast the castle can be considered a metaphorical character?

Multiple people on this board. I imagine it is metaphorical, but it is part of the push back against changing ships because its like changing a character. I cannot fathom this idea.

 

[eschaton]

Tangentially related (potentially) I do not consider ships characters. They can be interesting, well thought out designs, or just a set dressing. I too prefer characters or stories over imaginary tech. All the imaginary tech in the world will not make up for poor characters (see ENT).

The unironic use of the term "hero ship" also drives me nuts.

 

[Farscape One]

Count me as one of the people who feel the ship is a character, too.

Our hero ships are more than just a tool. They are the homes of our heroes. They carry us on the journey with them. The crew bonds within them. We bond with the ship because it is there from the very beginning to the very end of the show.

Look at SUPERNATURAL. Baby is VERY MUCH a character and a member of the Winchester family. Janeway in "YEAR OF HELL, PART II" delivered a good speech to Tuvok on this very subject.

And don't tell me it doesn't hurt when we lose our ships. When Kirk blew up the Enterprise in STIII... when the Breen destroy the Defiant... hell, I hated the look of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise, but they destroyed her in such a way that I actually felt sad it was destroyed.

The ships have their own quirks and personalities. Like our cars or trucks that we own... there may be hundreds of thousands of the same model, but each one is different.

Just like people.

 

[fireproof78]

Count me as one of the people who feel the ship is a character, too.

Our hero ships are more than just a tool. They are the homes of our heroes. They carry us on the journey with them. The crew bonds within them. We bond with the ship because it is there from the very beginning to the very end of the show.

Look at SUPERNATURAL. Baby is VERY MUCH a character and a member of the Winchester family. Janeway in "YEAR OF HELL, PART II" delivered a good speech to Tuvok on this very subject.

And don't tell me it doesn't hurt when we lose our ships. When Kirk blew up the Enterprise in STIII... when the Breen destroy the Defiant... hell, I hated the look of the J.J. Abrams Enterprise, but they destroyed her in such a way that I actually felt sad it was destroyed.

The ships have their own quirks and personalities. Like our cars or trucks that we own... there may be hundreds of thousands of the same model, but each one is different.

Just like people.

"We" do not all feel this way.

If my car blew up I would be upset because I couldn't get to work. Sorry, this is not how I treat a ship. I do not bond with a ship, or treat it as a character. And I know jack about Supernatural so for all I know "Baby" is a baby.

The only reason I hurt with the loss is because the characters I care about hurt, not because I miss the ship.

 

[RichT]

Perhaps the important point here is that both Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries did feel that way. They'd both been Air Force pilots in WWII and were familiar with the idea that machines could have "character" of their own, and designed the show accordingly.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm glad for them. Their care shows in their work.

I still don't.