What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[1001001]

My controversial opinion is that humans in the future are too much like contemporary humans. In a science fiction setting, I want to see human culture, society, behavior etc. that looks really bizarre to us 21st century primitives.

Kor

That's interesting.

One of the things I love so much about Futurama is that the technology has advanced, but humans are still as lazy, stupid, and selfish as ever.

Not that I'd want Star Trek to be that way, but there's something so familiar about Futurama despite its future setting.

 

[fireproof78]

My controversial opinion is that humans in the future are too much like contemporary humans. In a science fiction setting, I want to see human culture, society, behavior etc. that looks really bizarre to us 21st century primitives.

Kor

I would prefer a mix because there are some facets of human behavior that really isn't going to change all that much.

 

[Kor]

I would prefer a mix because there are some facets of human behavior that really isn't going to change all that much.

That is a good point. The TMP novelization had something like this going on, with these transcendent "new humans" on Earth while Starfleet types tended to be more old-fashioned throwbacks in comparison. In the movie we only spent time with Starfleet folks, though.

Kor

 

[Henoch]

My controversial opinion is that humans in the future are too much like contemporary humans. In a science fiction setting, I want to see human culture, society, behavior etc. that looks really bizarre to us 21st century primitives.

Kor

Using TOS as a point of view, I expect late 20th century humans to be as dissimilar to late 17th century humans as late 23rd century humans are to late 20th century humans. Yes, the human condition does change over three centuries, especially human norms in society.

 

[Vale]

Red Dwarf also has this problem - Rimmer is a hologram so shouldn't visibly age, but Chris Barrie obviously looked a lot wrinklier in 2017 than in 1988.

They lampshaded this in the show though. Remember season six, "Out of Time", when they met their future selves?:

Lister: Yo, we're in! Oh my god... look at Rimmer!
Rimmer: What? I can't have changed much. I'm a hologram.
Lister: Wrong! You're two meals away from being a sumo wrestler.

It's quite jarring to think that now they're almost 30 years older than their season six selves and looking much better than their "future selves" did back then when they were supposed to be from only from 15 years in the future!

Kryten might suffer similarly but the heavy makeup covers so much of his face that it doesn't matter as much.

With all due respect to Robert Llewellyn, who I have met briefly and who is a dear dear man, while Kryten hasn't gotten noticeably wrinklier he has certainly gotten noticeably heavier

 

[tesral]

There have been plenty of cases of human civilizations without money. The earliest Mesopotamian city-states didn't seem to have anything akin to open exchange, and ran as command economies centered around the major temples. Hell, the Inca empire existed within recorded history and not only lacked currency, but a market system. They collected resources as tribute (and used a labor levy system) and then distributed from public warehouses according to need). Things like food, clothing, and shelter were free, and there's no evidence that a "trader class" existed.

Not to say any of these scenarios are utopian. But advanced human societies worked in the absence of any regularized system of exchange, which shows it doesn't just develop organically.

Pre currency it is called barter. Money existed, but in a more nebulous form as it is hard to get change for a sheep. Which is why you see currency invented again and again.

Once the ability to assay the purity of precious metals was achieved, someplace in Asia Minor around 600 BCE, the whole shebang seem to have been invented whole cloth overnight. Obviously not literally, but the records are sparse. But banks, lending, interest, and so forth came about very quickly once they had specie they could count on.

 

[eschaton]

Pre currency it is called barter. Money existed, but in a more nebulous form as it is hard to get change for a sheep. Which is why you see currency invented again and again.

Once the ability to assay the purity of precious metals was achieved, someplace in Asia Minor around 600 BCE, the whole shebang seem to have been invented whole cloth overnight. Obviously not literally, but the records are sparse. But banks, lending, interest, and so forth came about very quickly once they had specie they could count on.

Even barter economies are not universal. Plenty of Neolithic-age societies operated on what is basically a command economy method, and show no evidence of anything resembling markets or private trading whatsoever. We even have written record of this when it comes to the Sumerians, and accounts of the Inca. There's actually no evidence of any pre-money economies which primarily engaged in exchange via barter - much more common was a "gift economy" where you provide a gift to someone, with the understood social expectation that you have to later return the favor (the concept of indebtedness clearly existed long before money itself did).

I will grant that it seems societies with money had an inbuilt advantage over societies without, which is why non-market based systems got crowded out. But it wasn't an inherent aspect of human culture - it was a useful technology.

 

[Henoch]

Can you get a loan (the word credit is used) in Star Trek, and if so, do they charge interest or do you even have to pay it back?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Fans seem to be more excited about new starships in the background of a space scene and the dedication plaque of the new Stargazer than the actual story content of the show.

This franchise is doomed.

 

[1001001]

 

[fireproof78]

Fans seem to be more excited about new starships in the background of a space scene and the dedication plaque of the new Stargazer than the actual story content of the show.

This franchise is doomed.

Well, as we all know, things like ships are way more important than people.

 

[tesral]

We even have written record of this when it comes to the Sumerians, and accounts of the Inca.

I've seen Sumerian tax documents with my own eyes.

 

[Vger23]

Fans seem to be more excited about new starships in the background of a space scene and the dedication plaque of the new Stargazer than the actual story content of the show.

This franchise is doomed.

It’s true. And it’s fucking weird.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It’s true. And it’s fucking weird.

I had to deal with pages of people gushing about having a varied fleet to find an actual God's To Honest Spolier.I do find it to be a bit odd, but I suppose we are all here for different reasons.

Star Trek ships are cool though.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Well, as we all know, things like ships are way more important than people.

The fact that an entire MMO VideoGame surrounding the entire cast of StarShips called "Star Trek Online" has survived since 2010 and is still active even now is a testament to the fanbase within Star Trek that loves "StarShips".

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Fans seem to be more excited about new starships in the background of a space scene and the dedication plaque of the new Stargazer than the actual story content of the show.

This franchise is doomed.

People who love spaceships are happy with the spaceships. I don't see this as being a problem!

Star Trek has always been about many different elements working together, the stories, the characters, the messages, the design work, the world building, etc. and when people pick one or two of those elements and say that they're the ones that really matter, it comes across like they're saying "Stop caring about things I don't care about!"

 

[F. King Daniel]

People who love spaceships are happy with the spaceships. I don't see this as being a problem!

Star Trek has always been about many different elements working together, the stories, the characters, the messages, the design work, the world building, etc. and when people pick one or two of those elements and say that they're the ones that really matter, it comes across like they're saying "Stop caring about things I don't care about!"

While I get what you're saying, and I enjoy the ship stuff too, I just wish people were THIS excited for Picard and company's new adventure. It seems like they just want ship designs and ship lore portioned out in the background and don't care about the characters and their struggles.

It's starship trainspotter Trek, for lack of a better term.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I suppose part of that might be because the series hasn't caught up to what we know from the trailers yet. People have already spent weeks speculating about the story and we haven't been given much more to talk about yet.

 

[gweeps]

While I get what you're saying, and I enjoy the ship stuff too, I just wish people were THIS excited for Picard and company's new adventure. It seems like they just want ship designs and ship lore portioned out in the background and don't care about the characters and their struggles.

It's starship trainspotter Trek, for lack of a better term.

Maybe the folks who geek out about uniforms, ships, languages, etc are the real nerds of Star Trek? I only really care about characters and stories.

 

[Phil123]

I suppose part of that might be because the series hasn't caught up to what we know from the trailers yet. People have already spent weeks speculating about the story and we haven't been given much more to talk about yet.

This is a good point. With TV now being serialised with a whole season being the story, it's hard form fully informed opinions on the plot. I really enjoyed what we got in PIC season 2 Episode 1, but I'm in no place to say if the season's story is any good or not. Does Q have a good reason for putting Picard through all this again? Maybe - I'll find out.

I am in a place to comment on some ships I saw onscreen though.