The Problem with Star Trek Plots

[YARN]

Another was in TWOK movie. They didn't try beaming the Genesis device out into space, scattering its atoms into oblivion. At least TRY... it could have been attempted with Chekov saying "We can't get a lock--the field emanating from the device is causing too much disruption for the transporter beam.".

Seriously? You want them to beam it out into the nebula so it won't blow them up when it goes off? As if it being on the Reliant is the problem? Do you realize how big nebulae are?

Yes, they are so big that they don't look like swirling lava lamps when you are inside of them. There would have been no cat and mouse game in the first place. LOL

At any rate, Kirk says "We'll beam it aboard" and David indicates that won't work. The question is why. Is it because they would not be able to disarm it? Is it because they could not transport it once it is activated? Is it because a transport would simply destabilize the thing and go off sooner?

We're never told. But if they could beam the thing anywhere, it would make sense to beam it away as far as possible, or (as the other poster noted) scatter its atoms into oblivion.

 

[BillJ]

Another was in TWOK movie. They didn't try beaming the Genesis device out into space, scattering its atoms into oblivion. At least TRY... it could have been attempted with Chekov saying "We can't get a lock--the field emanating from the device is causing too much disruption for the transporter beam.".

Seriously? You want them to beam it out into the nebula so it won't blow them up when it goes off? As if it being on the Reliant is the problem? Do you realize how big nebulae are?

Yes, they are so big that they don't look like swirling lava lamps when you are inside of them. There would have been no cat and mouse game in the first place. LOL

At any rate, Kirk says "We'll beam it aboard" and David indicates that won't work. The question is why. Is it because they would not be able to disarm it? Is it because they could not transport it once it is activated? Is it because a transport would simply destabilize the thing and go off sooner?

We're never told. But if they could beam the thing anywhere, it would make sense to beam it away as far as possible, or (as the other poster noted) scatter its atoms into oblivion.

Actually...

KIRK: We'll beam aboard and stop it.

Now whether they can't beam aboard due to interference or if they could beam aboard they wouldn't be able to disarm it. Really up to the viewer to determine what the line of dialogue means.

 

[Anwar]

Couldn't they just do half a beam and then just not re-materialize it?

 

[BillJ]

Couldn't they just do half a beam and then just not re-materialize it?

Could be that the Genesis device generates a field, once activated, that inhibits a transporter beam. Seems the most logical conclusion.

 

[david g]

Actually, what I have heard from some non-VOY fans (hard as that is for me to imagine!) about "Caretaker"'s "bad plotting" is the issue of the Kazons' need for water. How could a species with advanced, warp-drive technology not have water? However wobbly some aspects of its plot are, "Caretaker" remains, imo, the very best of all of the modern Trek pilots.

I really have never been motivated to question the inescapability of the Genesis Wave in TWOK. That whole climax, like the movie, is so well done that I never doubt or question any aspect of it while watching.

 

[Gojira]

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

Yeah, that's been a real problem in this franchise.
Tasha
Trip
Spock
Jadzia
Sisko (sort of)
Dukat (I figure he was recurring frequently enough to be considered a regular)
Data

The problem isn't that regulars don't die, the problem is that when they do die they don't stay dead.

 

[Saquist]

That's because Star Trek is Escapism.
It's meant to portray the best possible scenario. That's the whole idea. It tries not to be corny but it's still obvious that the character painted as the good guys will save the day and win the battle.

That's the American Angle on film.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

The main problem with Trek plots is that you know none of the regulars will die.

If you accept that death is that state from which you do not return.

Tasha......Death.
Trip ........Death, novels say he faked it.
Spock......Still with us.
Jadzia......Death, although Dax survived.
Sisko ......Kind of tough to say.
Dukat .....Death.
Data........Still with us, everything is inside "B4."

Those were few and far apart, though. Plus, you forgot Kirk.

 

[plynch]

That's because Star Trek is Escapism.
It's meant to portray the best possible scenario. That's the whole idea. It tries not to be corny but it's still obvious that the character painted as the good guys will save the day and win the battle.

That's the American Angle on film.

yeah, pretty much

hokey, isn't it

 

[Saquist]

As opposed to Japanese fatalism which was inspired ritual honor and holocaust?
Personally I like being positive but any which way too much of either in excess I find hokey.

Things don't always go right
And Murphy's Law isn't a given all the time.

 

[Commander Toby]

Personally I can forgive Trek some silly plots from time to time. Some episodes are rubbish, but for the most part I want to see them over and over again.

Don't forget that they also fly starships faster than light and time travel at the drop of a hat, but its all in good fun :-)

 

[Praxius]

Can't say I ever had a problem with their plots..... they seem to work pretty good considering the fan base and how many people watch, re-watch and watch again the same shows over and over again...... regardless of technological advancements in film and special effects that would improve many of the shows today, most keep coming back to the shows because of the stories, the characters and yes.... the plots.

That's because Star Trek is Escapism.
It's meant to portray the best possible scenario. That's the whole idea. It tries not to be corny but it's still obvious that the character painted as the good guys will save the day and win the battle.

That's the American Angle on film.

Cripes, you guys taking the credit for everything again jk

I'm sure there'd be some questions on that claim from those who worked on American History X

..... speaking of which, guess which star trek actor worked on that movie? (I know, easy trivia)

 

[Saquist]

Can't say I ever had a problem with their plots..... they seem to work pretty good considering the fan base and how many people watch, re-watch and watch again the same shows over and over again...... regardless of technological advancements in film and special effects that would improve many of the shows today, most keep coming back to the shows because of the stories, the characters and yes.... the plots.

That's because Star Trek is Escapism.
It's meant to portray the best possible scenario. That's the whole idea. It tries not to be corny but it's still obvious that the character painted as the good guys will save the day and win the battle.

That's the American Angle on film.

Cripes, you guys taking the credit for everything again jk

I'm sure there'd be some questions on that claim from those who worked on American History X

..... speaking of which, guess which star trek actor worked on that movie? (I know, easy trivia)

Avery...

Yeah...maybe it is hubris. I"m just calling like the analysis call it. I actually have not pride in the U.S. Texas, hell yeah...

But I do see what they're talking about. That is what American history has show. Winning against all odds.

By all rights the Americans as an inferrior colony should not have won the Revolutionary War especially considering the mistakes that Washington had in battle..there was some tactics that in the end saved the day and the rifles of the Americans can actually be said to make a difference but on the whole...Fortune favored the bold.

The same with the War against the Japanese.
The Americans almost had no right winning the pacific. Midway...was unbelievable, Pearl Harbor should have been the end of the American Pacific Fleet, Lexington should have burned to the water...but they recovered her.

Tech was on our side that time. Radar and using carbon dioxide from the engine room to put out fires....It was creative.

The President pressing to keep the carriers moving instead of layed up in dock like Congress wanted as a show of force. I don't know how long that kind of luck is going to last for America but it has been the "Feel Good Story" that is intensely reflected in Star Trek.

 

[Praxius]

Yeah...maybe it is hubris. I"m just calling like the analysis call it. I actually have not pride in the U.S. Texas, hell yeah...

But I do see what they're talking about. That is what American history has show. Winning against all odds.

By all rights the Americans as an inferrior colony should not have won the Revolutionary War especially considering the mistakes that Washington had in battle..there was some tactics that in the end saved the day and the rifles of the Americans can actually be said to make a difference but on the whole...Fortune favored the bold.

Well I wasn't being serious with my remarks, I was just being a smartass.

But the other thing the US had in their favor during the revolution was new combat tactics such as guerrilla warfare and not standing in a straight line to be shot from 10 feet away by an out numbering force (anybody would lose in that situation since it'd all be left up to who had more soldiers)

Also the targeting of officers, etc.... and the help from the French.

When all this unfolded, the British cried foul and considered the tactics those not of a gentleman or something along those lines and considered many US soldiers as terrorists, thus those they captured weren't given standard war/POW protections, etc.....

When you're up against a superior force that would defeat you under normal circumstances, you need to change tactics in order to survive..... ST examples of this would be the Bajorans against the Cardassians and later the Cardassians against the Dominion....... current day examples of this would be the Taliban and Al'Q.

I'm not saying I support the tactics the Taliban and Al'Q use, but none the less, as much as any of us may hate it, they are doing just what many other forces over the centuries have done in order to stay alive and be a thorn in a bigger force's side.

If they went toe to toe with US/NATO allied forces the way we'd normally expect them to, they would have been wiped out years ago...... just as if the US forces against the British stuck to the same old tactics the British expected, the same thing would probably have happened to the US.

The same with the War against the Japanese.
The Americans almost had no right winning the pacific. Midway...was unbelievable, Pearl Harbor should have been the end of the American Pacific Fleet, Lexington should have burned to the water...but they recovered her.

Tech was on our side that time. Radar and using carbon dioxide from the engine room to put out fires....It was creative.

Wars do have the tendency of bringing out people's imaginations in regards to solving problems...... as many countries during WWII came up with their own ingenious technologies and inventions which many of us all take for granted today.

The President pressing to keep the carriers moving instead of layed up in dock like Congress wanted as a show of force. I don't know how long that kind of luck is going to last for America but it has been the "Feel Good Story" that is intensely reflected in Star Trek.

Well generally speaking, how many shows do any of us know of, be that US, Canadian, European, Australian, Asian, South American shows.... where most of the episodes don't end happily and the main characters die all the time?

Not many to my knowledge..... it'd probably be difficult for most to get involved into a show when the main characters don't stick around long enough to let them grow on you or become attached to......

And if all the episodes of a show ended in misery and not on a happy note.... how many people would continue to watch it?

I don't think it has to due much with people always wanting happy stories and conditioned to be that way..... I think it has more to do with people hearing about bad and depressing stories all the time in the news, in our lives, in our communities, etc..... and people turn to shows, movies and entertainment in order to just balance it out some.

Shows that had all the main character die all the time and ended in depressing ways might attract the emos out there, but after a while, I imagine it'd grow tiresome to most.

 

[plynch]

facile, trite endings

 

[scotpens]

Personal jeopardy is not the foundation of “drama.” Making meaningful choices is drama.

More generally speaking, the essence of drama is conflict. The essence of adventure is personal danger. In its original incarnation, Star Trek was conceived as action-adventure. That meant Kirk, or another character, or the entire crew of the Enterprise, or someone had to be in danger.

However, as David Gerrold succinctly pointed out in The World of Star Trek, Trek TOS increasingly came to rely on the Mary Worth formula -- the Enterprise crew find themselves meddling in some planet's affairs and dealing with that planet's cultural problem. The bastard offspring of two very different kinds of stories -- the hero-in-danger story and the Mary Worth story -- resulted in the typical Trek plot that soon wore itself out: Kirk and Co. are trapped in some alien culture and have to solve that culture's problem in order to escape.

The problem isn't that regulars don't die, the problem is that when they do die they don't stay dead.

Damn right. Hell, in TOS Kirk died three times!

 

[Saquist]

And if all the episodes of a show ended in misery and not on a happy note.... how many people would continue to watch it?

I don't think it has to due much with people always wanting happy stories and conditioned to be that way..... I think it has more to do with people hearing about bad and depressing stories all the time in the news, in our lives, in our communities, etc..... and people turn to shows, movies and entertainment in order to just balance it out some.[/QUOTE]

I do think people want positive more than negative...but there is certain cowboy style that is particularly American..Comics reinforced that with the superhero idea..

Really how far back do we go. Do we owe the age of Television to America and Hollywood. I'm mean what an industry.

Shows that had all the main character die all the time and ended in depressing ways might attract the emos out there, but after a while, I imagine it'd grow tiresome to most.

I remember when my dad watched Blake's 7 and he rattled off the longest string of expletives when the crew died.