If only John Finn's ''Now you're learning, boyo'' was sufficiently on topic.
So, back to that glove. Joe Tormolen, 23rd Century's greatest dingbat. But at least he didn't turn his back on a knifing Andorian.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
So, back to that glove. Joe Tormolen, 23rd Century's greatest dingbat. But at least he didn't turn his back on a knifing Andorian.
People screw up in the real world all the time. Space is dangerous, they are encountering unknown things all the time.
He obviously shouldn't have done it, but people make mistakes and it's simply the inciting incident for the drama.
I'm aware. I've screwed up a lot in my life.
There are just certain "inciting incidents" that break suspension of disbelief for me. This is one of them.
Others have others. This is SF DEBRIS stupidest scene in Star Trek for him: it's from Deep Space Nine and he's more known for lambasting Voyager ahs Enterprise more than Deep Space Nine but this scene tops his list.
Now you are getting it.
No excuses.
Look into the Spanish Flu of 1918...
Then look into the Black death...
The point being is that you don't take the wrong kind of short cuts.
And at least one of you didn't remember that the Buffalo Bills went to the Superbowl four times and lost four times.
Remember that 'professional ' sports are entertainment, and therefore subject to criticism.
It can be argued that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, was in the position of being the first, going to Strange New Worlds, the Chief Engineer, explained something had to so different from the expected, that it wouldn't be removed from the transporter. In other words impossible.
There are no proper excuses for contamination being brought onboard.
Therefore no stories. Unless you like the idea that the crew is too involved in focusing on chatting about non issues instead of their jobs.
These are supposed to be professionals, not high-school students on a responsible field trip.
Such that depicting them as anything other than proper professionals is a trope - in words Bad News.
Which means that a common Tricorder at any point, should be hot to trot. Otherwise why use a piece of junk?
In the case of 'The Naked Time ', the crew of the research outpost, was killed by something. That should have brought the Tricorder to full alert, overriding normal concerns. Meaning that it would have gone, let's say from a low resolution mode, to an immediate very high resolution mode. Just to determine the actual cause of death.
But once the shouting was over, it would have become normal to scan for hypothetical variants of something similar.
Another part of the protocol that should have been involved, no beam ups until resolved.
To all of this another way we already have protocols in place.
No excuses.
Look into the Spanish Flu of 1918...
Then look into the Black death...
The point being is that you don't take the wrong kind of short cuts.
And at least one of you didn't remember that the Buffalo Bills went to the Superbowl four times and lost four times.
Remember that 'professional ' sports are entertainment, and therefore subject to criticism.
It can be argued that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, was in the position of being the first, going to Strange New Worlds, the Chief Engineer, explained something had to so different from the expected, that it wouldn't be removed from the transporter. In other words impossible.
There are no proper excuses for contamination being brought onboard.
Therefore no stories. Unless you like the idea that the crew is too involved in focusing on chatting about non issues instead of their jobs.
These are supposed to be professionals, not high-school students on a responsible field trip.
Such that depicting them as anything other than proper professionals is a trope - in words Bad News.
Which means that a common Tricorder at any point, should be hot to trot. Otherwise why use a piece of junk?
In the case of 'The Naked Time ', the crew of the research outpost, was killed by something. That should have brought the Tricorder to full alert, overriding normal concerns. Meaning that it would have gone, let's say from a low resolution mode, to an immediate very high resolution mode. Just to determine the actual cause of death.
But once the shouting was over, it would have become normal to scan for hypothetical variants of something similar.
Another part of the protocol that should have been involved, no beam ups until resolved.
To all of this another way we already have protocols in place.
As illustrated earlier in your post about the Bills, professionals screw up all the time.
To quote a friend of mine, "Without it there wouldn't be any draama."
Realism is not even remotely the point of high level story telling. All fiction is non-realistic to a very high degree because unfiltered reality doesn't make for good stories.
Also, judging a story based on how realistic it is and nothing more is the definition of putting Form over Substance.
Okay, here is a new controversial opinion:
Star Trek should again pretend more that it is hard-SF.
I mean we all know it isn't.
But since 2009, modern Trek really operates on comicbook-understanding of science fiction concepts like parallel universes, black holes, time-travel etc.
So much so, that in a recent episode of SNW (which I love), a reality-shifting ancient temple was a subplot in an energy-being possession plot.
I miss the days when space documentaries used shots from Star Trek or had Leonard Nimoy as guest, pretending to know what he's talking about, and in general the more "fantastic" story elements like time-loops or wormholes being more thoroughly explained by Geordi LaForge, with colourful graphs & referencing scientists' names, instead of just being accepted as common knowledge as part of pop culture.
Star Trek should again pretend more that it is hard-SF.
I mean we all know it isn't.
But since 2009, modern Trek really operates on comicbook-understanding of science fiction concepts like parallel universes, black holes, time-travel etc.
So much so, that in a recent episode of SNW (which I love), a reality-shifting ancient temple was a subplot in an energy-being possession plot.
I miss the days when space documentaries used shots from Star Trek or had Leonard Nimoy as guest, pretending to know what he's talking about, and in general the more "fantastic" story elements like time-loops or wormholes being more thoroughly explained by Geordi LaForge, with colourful graphs & referencing scientists' names, instead of just being accepted as common knowledge as part of pop culture.
That may get in the way of... (checks notes) "good storytelling".
Triad, anyone?
Wrong.
I have been posting about quality of writing and entertainment.
Star Trek, purports to be a "realistic " depiction of the future. One that is a logical extrapolation from the mid 1960s and beyond.
Problem: since the 1960s, in terms of some things we are far more technologically advanced than Star Trek ever thought of being. But NOT in terms of Artificial Intelligence. Star Trek had Artificial Intelligence before 2002. Please note that this doesn't mean that electronic computing technology is more advanced, because it turns out that Gordon Moore's law, was expected to be good only for ten years after he formulated his law...
Then there is the problem of the DY-100 interplanetary ship...while it was quite likely that a plasma driven ship could have the necessary performance level, it was never done. Manned Spaceflight at this time, is basically a joke.
Why?
Because Nixon chose the Spaceshuttle over the nuclear rocket.
He brought advanced space travel to an end.
Right now all we hear are excuses for 'why not '.
The United States had the technologically capability to send people to Mars, as as 1978.
Which brings us to the real problem.
We don't know enough about Manned interplanetary flight, and the actual problems that will occur. What we have is guesses, not hard core empirical data.
To get hard core empirical data requires actual informed sacrifice. Meaning actually sending people out on a full up Manned mission to Mars. No guessing permitted.
This is the difference between fiction and reality.
The 'will' doesn't exist. It has been shot down by fear and trolls...
Hard lessons half to be experienced and understood.
Now in terms of the projected future in Star Trek, Eugenics wars of the early 1990s, far more than problematic.
'The Expanse' has a far more realistic depiction of Interplanetary travel than Star Trek...
This brings up another point. We now know far more about the Solar System, then they did in the 1960s.
So, this is why I prefer quality to quantity.
Star Trek, was limited due to lack of data. This is our major problem. Our ignorance.
No.
Not if they wanted to be alive when they got back. ECLSS systems were total-loss. If AAP hadn't been defunded we MAY have gotten a loop flight around Venus, but anything more would have required a massive development. The tech, the rad shielding, MMO shielding, environmental systems were not ready, and living in zero g had not been studied enough. I agree that NERVA shouldn't have been killed, and we should have continued to build off of SkyLab. People love going into the Air and Space museum walking through Skylab and enjoying it, thinking its a cool mockup. It's actually a tragedy. It isn't a mockup. That thing is skylab 2 and it could have been what ISS eventually became, 20 years earlier. But it's overly optimistic to say we could have had successful boots-on-Mars missions by 78.
Until you get to the alien blue goo, but yes.
Star Trek is fun. It never intended to be anything but that. With the esper silliness, it was science-fantasy from episode one. If you don't enjoy it, why bother?
It may be considered controversial, on the other hand maybe not, but I've never considered Star Trek to be a great franchise for scientific accuracy. Sure, the shows often dress up technology and terms with realistic-sounding expressions, but when you pause, and really dig into the tech, Star Trek is better at sounding realistic, without actually being realistic. It's inspired people to take up an interest in science, which is great, but that doesn't mean we should confuse it with a scientifically-accurate set of shows. This has been a long-standing misunderstanding of the franchise, going way back to TOS.
I agree 100%. And you can't even reboot Trek to suddenly make it scientifically reliable. It just can't be. You have to enjoy it for the tv-pulp thing it is, or wish for some hard-sf space show that will somehow cure the itch. The only one I can think of, is Ronald D Moore's For All Mankind, and even it cheats now and then.
Absolutely.
The transporter, humanoid aliens, artificial gravity, and warp drive were all adopted or invented specifically for the reason of simplifying the television production, not for any scientific reasons. These are all elements that are intrinsically Star Trek. Without them as the norm, you don't have Star Trek as we know it, you have something else.
And if the "unsciencey" parts of any of those seriously bother viewers, maybe they need to watch something else. It's science fiction, not another reboot of an old Carl Sagan documentary.
It's interesting that people don't hold up Star Wars to the same kind of scientific accountability that Star Trek seems to be expected to meet. Neither of them were ever intended to do that. Star Trek is a bit of 19th century gunboat diplomacy and western in a new atomic age wrapper. Star Wars is old 1930's Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials, with a few stolen ideas from Herbert and Asimov with better special effects.
If they'd prefer Cosmos, they'd better hide their faces behind their knees when Carl zips through space in his "Spaceship of the Imagination."
Yep. The "Well, Ackshually" crowd is annoying in any group of human beings, but in Trek they can be exceptionally irritating.
Similar threads
