Things I Hate About Star Trek

[Thor Damar]

I'll add a more generic 'hate': no payoff for foreshadowed plot plans. The Temporal Cold War comes to mind.

Future Guy and Space Nazis, ah what fun they where.

 

[NickInABox]

I think the best ship in the Star Trek universe *EVER* was the Equinox. THAT was a Starship. THAT was the closest thing to realism.

Dude, this is the thread for things you dislike about trek. The 'what I love' thread is thataway<.

I'm in complete agreement with you about the Nova's, great little ships.

No no, I was expanding on my previous ideas on the fact that I don't like pristine starships all the time (*cough* Voyager). I wasn't posting what I loved about ST :-p

 

[Michael]

I think the best ship in the Star Trek universe *EVER* was the Equinox. THAT was a Starship. THAT was the closest thing to realism.

The Equinox was the closest thing to realism? I mean, I love the Equinox, but what makes it anymore real than the other starships we see in Star Trek?

 

[NickInABox]

I think the best ship in the Star Trek universe *EVER* was the Equinox. THAT was a Starship. THAT was the closest thing to realism.

The Equinox was the closest thing to realism? I mean, I love the Equinox, but what makes it anymore real than the other starships we see in Star Trek?

The fact that it had been through a rough time in the Delta Quadrant, and looked like it. Whereas Voyager seems to always have enough fuel (though they did claim to be able to mine dilithium, which surprises me since it was supposed to be a short range vessel) and was always in perfect shape every episode.

 

[Michael]

I think the best ship in the Star Trek universe *EVER* was the Equinox. THAT was a Starship. THAT was the closest thing to realism.

The Equinox was the closest thing to realism? I mean, I love the Equinox, but what makes it anymore real than the other starships we see in Star Trek?

The fact that it had been through a rough time in the Delta Quadrant, and looked like it. Whereas Voyager seems to always have enough fuel (though they did claim to be able to mine dilithium, which surprises me since it was supposed to be a short range vessel) and was always in perfect shape every episode.

Ah, okay. Now I understand. I thought you meant the design of the ship was closer to a real starship than other Trek ships. And you're right, of course, showing a ship with actual damage made it feel more real in that regard.

 

[Albertese]

The quality of the acting of most of the extras in TNG. Especially that one that spills her coffee on Picard.

Sonya Gomez was hardly an extra.

Whatever. She was crap and annoying as all hell.

Dude. She was turbo cute. I was she was in more than two episodes!

 

[Myasishchev]

Something else I hate about Star Trek: time travel.

Each incarnation is built on bad science and hides a trove of bad logic, and the portrayals of time travel are inconsistent at best. For every episode with a predestination paradox (Past Tense), there's another episode which indicates that the future can be changed/needs to be repaired (Yesterday's Enterprise, Future's End, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Trials and Tribble-ations, that ENT episode where Archer has Alzheimer's), there's a third episode where it doesn't seem to matter at all (Star Trek IV, Little Green Men), and yet a fourth episode where a predestination paradox can actually be outwitted (Time Squared, Cause and Effect). Which is it?

And even despite or perhaps because of these lax rules governing them, many time travel eps tend to be unentertaining.

The best ones are unquestionably the ones where time travel is just a plot device, not the plot. Star Trek IV gives us time travel, and doesn't bullshit with temporal paradoxes, just enchanting comedy and character pieces. Little Green Men is funny and light--there's little suggestion that Earth's history is in danger of being corrupted by the crafty Ferengi, or that Quark and the gang are going to get vivisected ala Zoidberg in the (highly similar, now I think about it) Futurama episode.

The predestination paradox episodes are usually interesting in that the character has to figure out what it is he's destined to do, which of course he's going to wind up doing anyway, because it's a predestination paradox--this type of story runs into some dramatic problems, because it's entirely in presentation of the paradox whether it succeeds or fails. Past Tense basically works, I guess. The subset of predestination episodes, where the loop can be broken, is questionable logically, but at least made good television in Cause and Effect.

However, by far the largest class of time travel episodes, however, involves the notion that exploits in the past change something in the future and "damage" the timeline and/or cause the universe to explode. This makes sense on a very facile level, but if you think about it it'll make your brain explode. Causes tend to have unpredictable final effects which we generally ignore because they make no difference--to us. Being in the past changes the past, at least on a very minor level, but as I shall demonstrate, engaging with society in the past will eventually change everything beyond recognition.

I'll take Yesterday's Enterprise as an example.

The most obvious effect is the existence or non-existence of people we know in the future. However, what determines the existence and shape of a person depends on a very precise sequence of events, particularly their conception, which varies not only by choice of partner, but can be radically altered by nothing more than the angle of impact of the same sperm, which can be altered by momentary differences in position--let alone by the use different sperm and eggs. Remember the "thermodynamic miracle" in Watchmen? Yeah, it only looks like that in hindsight, but time travel is all about hindsight.

Once Tasha's been captured and taken back to Romulus, she winds up having a kid with some Romulan dude (see my previous post for how that's nonsense), namely Sela. Beyond foreclosing the particular offspring he (or she) may have had in the "unrepaired" timeline, the sequence of events is going to be different for every member of that Romulan crew. The havoc wreaked in the new post-Tasha timeline is immense. Millions of Romulans are blinked out of existence and replaced by what are in effect siblings. And their existence is going to cause ever more and more damage in the form of the unrealized genetic potential that had once been made manifest in the original timeline, not to mention the even more far-reaching effects of completely different lives and life-choices, till eventually the world looks nothing like it "ought" to, except in extremely broad strokes (e.g., the Romulan Empire still exists, with a totally different bunch of Romulans administering it).

Of course, let's not get into the unfathomable debate of how a human being can somehow decide which universe has a greater moral right to exist than another.

Now take Future's End, which is far enough back that these effects will actually completely change the entire genetic makeup of Voyager's crew, and say hello to Harriet Kim.

The point is: if the universe is singular and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because no event can be changed; if the universe is manifold and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because everything happens somewhere; if the universe is singular and mutable, and the past can be changed, it can at best be returned to a broad fascimile of what came before, but it cannot be "fixed."

I really hate time travel episodes.

 

[Cyke101]

Something else I hate about Star Trek: time travel.

Each incarnation is built on bad science and hides a trove of bad logic, and the portrayals of time travel are inconsistent at best. For every episode with a predestination paradox (Past Tense), there's another episode which indicates that the future can be changed/needs to be repaired (Yesterday's Enterprise, Future's End, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Trials and Tribble-ations, that ENT episode where Archer has Alzheimer's), there's a third episode where it doesn't seem to matter at all (Star Trek IV, Little Green Men), and yet a fourth episode where a predestination paradox can actually be outwitted (Time Squared, Cause and Effect). Which is it?

And even despite or perhaps because of these lax rules governing them, many time travel eps tend to be unentertaining.

The best ones are unquestionably the ones where time travel is just a plot device, not the plot. Star Trek IV gives us time travel, and doesn't bullshit with temporal paradoxes, just enchanting comedy and character pieces. Little Green Men is funny and light--there's little suggestion that Earth's history is in danger of being corrupted by the crafty Ferengi, or that Quark and the gang are going to get vivisected ala Zoidberg in the (highly similar, now I think about it) Futurama episode.

The predestination paradox episodes are usually interesting in that the character has to figure out what it is he's destined to do, which of course he's going to wind up doing anyway, because it's a predestination paradox--this type of story runs into some dramatic problems, because it's entirely in presentation of the paradox whether it succeeds or fails. Past Tense basically works, I guess. The subset of predestination episodes, where the loop can be broken, is questionable logically, but at least made good television in Cause and Effect.

However, by far the largest class of time travel episodes, however, involves the notion that exploits in the past change something in the future and "damage" the timeline and/or cause the universe to explode. This makes sense on a very facile level, but if you think about it it'll make your brain explode. Causes tend to have unpredictable final effects which we generally ignore because they make no difference--to us. Being in the past changes the past, at least on a very minor level, but as I shall demonstrate, engaging with society in the past will eventually change everything beyond recognition.

I'll take Yesterday's Enterprise as an example.

The most obvious effect is the existence or non-existence of people we know in the future. However, what determines the existence and shape of a person depends on a very precise sequence of events, particularly their conception, which varies not only by choice of partner, but can be radically altered by nothing more than the angle of impact of the same sperm, which can be altered by momentary differences in position--let alone by the use different sperm and eggs. Remember the "thermodynamic miracle" in Watchmen? Yeah, it only looks like that in hindsight, but time travel is all about hindsight.

Once Tasha's been captured and taken back to Romulus, she winds up having a kid with some Romulan dude (see my previous post for how that's nonsense), namely Sela. Beyond foreclosing the particular offspring he (or she) may have had in the "unrepaired" timeline, the sequence of events is going to be different for every member of that Romulan crew. The havoc wreaked in the new post-Tasha timeline is immense. Millions of Romulans are blinked out of existence and replaced by what are in effect siblings. And their existence is going to cause ever more and more damage in the form of the unrealized genetic potential that had once been made manifest in the original timeline, not to mention the even more far-reaching effects of completely different lives and life-choices, till eventually the world looks nothing like it "ought" to, except in extremely broad strokes (e.g., the Romulan Empire still exists, with a totally different bunch of Romulans administering it).

Of course, let's not get into the unfathomable debate of how a human being can somehow decide which universe has a greater moral right to exist than another.

Now take Future's End, which is far enough back that these effects will actually completely change the entire genetic makeup of Voyager's crew, and say hello to Harriet Kim.

The point is: if the universe is singular and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because no event can be changed; if the universe is manifold and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because everything happens somewhere; if the universe is singular and mutable, and the past can be changed, it can at best be returned to a broad fascimile of what came before, but it cannot be "fixed."

I really hate time travel episodes.

You made my nose bleed.

 

[NickInABox]

Something else I hate about Star Trek: time travel.

Each incarnation is built on bad science and hides a trove of bad logic, and the portrayals of time travel are inconsistent at best. For every episode with a predestination paradox (Past Tense), there's another episode which indicates that the future can be changed/needs to be repaired (Yesterday's Enterprise, Future's End, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Trials and Tribble-ations, that ENT episode where Archer has Alzheimer's), there's a third episode where it doesn't seem to matter at all (Star Trek IV, Little Green Men), and yet a fourth episode where a predestination paradox can actually be outwitted (Time Squared, Cause and Effect). Which is it?

And even despite or perhaps because of these lax rules governing them, many time travel eps tend to be unentertaining.

The best ones are unquestionably the ones where time travel is just a plot device, not the plot. Star Trek IV gives us time travel, and doesn't bullshit with temporal paradoxes, just enchanting comedy and character pieces. Little Green Men is funny and light--there's little suggestion that Earth's history is in danger of being corrupted by the crafty Ferengi, or that Quark and the gang are going to get vivisected ala Zoidberg in the (highly similar, now I think about it) Futurama episode.

The predestination paradox episodes are usually interesting in that the character has to figure out what it is he's destined to do, which of course he's going to wind up doing anyway, because it's a predestination paradox--this type of story runs into some dramatic problems, because it's entirely in presentation of the paradox whether it succeeds or fails. Past Tense basically works, I guess. The subset of predestination episodes, where the loop can be broken, is questionable logically, but at least made good television in Cause and Effect.

However, by far the largest class of time travel episodes, however, involves the notion that exploits in the past change something in the future and "damage" the timeline and/or cause the universe to explode. This makes sense on a very facile level, but if you think about it it'll make your brain explode. Causes tend to have unpredictable final effects which we generally ignore because they make no difference--to us. Being in the past changes the past, at least on a very minor level, but as I shall demonstrate, engaging with society in the past will eventually change everything beyond recognition.

I'll take Yesterday's Enterprise as an example.

The most obvious effect is the existence or non-existence of people we know in the future. However, what determines the existence and shape of a person depends on a very precise sequence of events, particularly their conception, which varies not only by choice of partner, but can be radically altered by nothing more than the angle of impact of the same sperm, which can be altered by momentary differences in position--let alone by the use different sperm and eggs. Remember the "thermodynamic miracle" in Watchmen? Yeah, it only looks like that in hindsight, but time travel is all about hindsight.

Once Tasha's been captured and taken back to Romulus, she winds up having a kid with some Romulan dude (see my previous post for how that's nonsense), namely Sela. Beyond foreclosing the particular offspring he (or she) may have had in the "unrepaired" timeline, the sequence of events is going to be different for every member of that Romulan crew. The havoc wreaked in the new post-Tasha timeline is immense. Millions of Romulans are blinked out of existence and replaced by what are in effect siblings. And their existence is going to cause ever more and more damage in the form of the unrealized genetic potential that had once been made manifest in the original timeline, not to mention the even more far-reaching effects of completely different lives and life-choices, till eventually the world looks nothing like it "ought" to, except in extremely broad strokes (e.g., the Romulan Empire still exists, with a totally different bunch of Romulans administering it).

Of course, let's not get into the unfathomable debate of how a human being can somehow decide which universe has a greater moral right to exist than another.

Now take Future's End, which is far enough back that these effects will actually completely change the entire genetic makeup of Voyager's crew, and say hello to Harriet Kim.

The point is: if the universe is singular and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because no event can be changed; if the universe is manifold and a four-dimensional solid, then it doesn't matter what you do, because everything happens somewhere; if the universe is singular and mutable, and the past can be changed, it can at best be returned to a broad fascimile of what came before, but it cannot be "fixed."

I really hate time travel episodes.

tl;dr: Time travel = shit.

 

[Myasishchev]

You made my nose bleed.

You see why I hate time travel episodes, then.

 

[Cyke101]

You made my nose bleed.

You see why I hate time travel episodes, then.

Hey, I didn't like them at first because, as you pointed out, they should be plot devices and not the actual plot. But then you went into temporal steaming details and then...

...damn! I'm bleeding again! I have to go lie down now...

 

[Dingo]

Where are the Upper Midwestern accents, the New York accents, the Chicago accents, the Cajun accents? It makes Trek sound so bl-a-a-a-a-a-n-d.

You forgot the Boston accents. You can't forget that. Imagine a Captain with a Boston accent:

"Mr. Helmsman, get us out of heye at wahp nine..."

 

[Thor Damar]

Where are the Upper Midwestern accents, the New York accents, the Chicago accents, the Cajun accents? It makes Trek sound so bl-a-a-a-a-a-n-d.

You forgot the Boston accents. You can't forget that. Imagine a Captain with a Boston accent:

"Mr. Helmsman, get us out of heye at wahp nine..."

Great, now I have an image of Joe Quimby in command of the Enterprise!

 

[JustKate]

^ Try to imagine, say, John F. Kennedy instead. OK, not a perfect man by any means, but better than Peter. As are most of us, actually.

 

[Thor Damar]

^ Try to imagine, say, John F. Kennedy instead. OK, not a perfect man by any means, but better than Peter. As are most of us, actually.

I've edited my post to Diamond Joe Quimby cos Peter's from Rhode Island not Boston.
But yet JFK would make a great Starfleet captain, heck he was the living embodiment of James T Kirk (JTK).

 

[Praetor]

The Equinox was the closest thing to realism? I mean, I love the Equinox, but what makes it anymore real than the other starships we see in Star Trek?

The fact that it had been through a rough time in the Delta Quadrant, and looked like it. Whereas Voyager seems to always have enough fuel (though they did claim to be able to mine dilithium, which surprises me since it was supposed to be a short range vessel) and was always in perfect shape every episode.

Ah, okay. Now I understand. I thought you meant the design of the ship was closer to a real starship than other Trek ships. And you're right, of course, showing a ship with actual damage made it feel more real in that regard.

Ahh, I can appreciate that as well. I'm glad to have an answer too.

You made my nose bleed.

You see why I hate time travel episodes, then.

Hey, I didn't like them at first because, as you pointed out, they should be plot devices and not the actual plot. But then you went into temporal steaming details and then...

...damn! I'm bleeding again! I have to go lie down now...

I tend to agree with you both. When ANY element of fictional/theoretical science (or pseudoscience as the case may be) becomes the plot rather than the plot device, it really takes the story down a notch for me.

Crap! These nosebleeds must be contagious.

Where are the Upper Midwestern accents, the New York accents, the Chicago accents, the Cajun accents? It makes Trek sound so bl-a-a-a-a-a-n-d.

You forgot the Boston accents. You can't forget that. Imagine a Captain with a Boston accent:

"Mr. Helmsman, get us out of heye at wahp nine..."

Great, now I have an image of Joe Quimby in command of the Enterprise!

You think that's bad? I've got Chief Wiggum in command in my head. I can't even type what that feels like.

 

[JustKate]

^ ^ Yes, I was going to point that out, Thor, but I decided to have mercy on the poor foreign guy.

And actually, at least to my inexpert ear, the accents are kind of similar.

 

[Thor Damar]

The fact that it had been through a rough time in the Delta Quadrant, and looked like it. Whereas Voyager seems to always have enough fuel (though they did claim to be able to mine dilithium, which surprises me since it was supposed to be a short range vessel) and was always in perfect shape every episode.

Ah, okay. Now I understand. I thought you meant the design of the ship was closer to a real starship than other Trek ships. And you're right, of course, showing a ship with actual damage made it feel more real in that regard.

Ahh, I can appreciate that as well. I'm glad to have an answer too.



I tend to agree with you both. When ANY element of fictional/theoretical science (or pseudoscience as the case may be) becomes the plot rather than the plot device, it really takes the story down a notch for me.

Crap! These nosebleeds must be contagious.

You forgot the Boston accents. You can't forget that. Imagine a Captain with a Boston accent:

"Mr. Helmsman, get us out of heye at wahp nine..."

Great, now I have an image of Joe Quimby in command of the Enterprise!

You think that's bad? I've got Chief Wiggum in command in my head. I can't even type what that feels like.

Wha!
Oh dear god no!

 

[JustKate]

^ Eh, he'd never pass the physical.

 

[Dingo]

Having been posted in New England before, I can tell the subtle differences between the two accents.

"Mr. Engineeh, whats the status of the wahp drive?"