History of Star Trek having no "money"

[Arpy]

Why does the "before TVH" matter?

 

[Tallguy]

Why does the "before TVH" matter?

Because it wasn't even kind of part of Star Trek before that. And if you asked anyone working on the show, anyone watching the show, or anyone writing about the show, it wasn't part of Star Trek.

It wasn't suppressed. It wasn't edited. There was no network pressure. It wasn't abandoned or left in an unused draft. It wasn't there. And scripts referencing human wealth and greed were.

Historically the fictional television show called Star Trek had several episodes featuring money. And until Star Trek: The Voyage Home had zero episodes or movies saying that they didn't have it. At some point after 1984 (when The Search for Spock references money) someone said "Hey, I have an idea..."

I've heard and read Roddenberry talking about many things and many ways that he felt kept down by the networks. What he wanted but didn't get either because of censorship, budget, or both. I've heard him talk about the military, sex, medicine, humor, religion, sex, the network, sex, and I never once heard him talk about money in Star Trek until after TNG was on the air.

If you like to watch the original show and edit it in your head to be the same money-less(ish) society that was in TNG then that's fine. And I'm sure Roddenberry would rather he had made it that way. But that's not how it was written.

 

[Arpy]

I don't think anyone is arguing that when it first aired there wasn't money.

But why don't you think they included years for Khan's rise to power in the JJ-verse? The franchise evolves with the times. I'm happy imagining alternate universes with the original dates, with the novel-verse's clever retcon of what the secret Eugenics Wars entailed, and with JJ's version.

And if we're contacted by aliens tomorrow, I hope they work that into future Trek, FC's history aside.

 

[Spot261]

No instances I'm aware of, it was a temporary situation whilst Roddenberry managed to bull his way through over other voices and doesn't obviously fit well within the canon because of that. There are clear instances of money within and without the federation in all time frames, filmed before and since. Where the canon seems to contradict it seems to me the casual viewer (if they notice) might disregard the issue, the more astute and dedicated fans will want to make sense of it IN UNIVERSE.

This is why "writer's intent" is a terrible recourse for argument when discussing the canon, different writers have different intents at different times and the canon of the show is what falls out of the mix onscreen, not what backstage gossip they reveal in interviews.

Of course what is on screen can be interpreted differently by viewers but in most cases there are ways to rationalise which makes more sense, given the prevalance of moderating evidence. No one's saying the show is without actual discrepencies, but I am saying as an intelligent bunch we can find reasonable ways around most of them.

 

[Tenacity]

Memory Alpha has this :

Furthermore, while most member worlds have single, unified world government, it is not required for entry, as the Federation will consider "associate membership" of non-unified worlds

In the episode Attached, Picard said all the previous members had been unified when they joined the Federation , no mention was made (in that episode) that unified meant a one world goverrnment. Beverly in the same scene indicated that "unified" referred to the people of a entering member.

Being “allies” can have all manner of meaning.

Not really, an alliance does have a few different meaning. One thing an alliance isn't is a nation state.

 

[Arpy]

Not really, an alliance does have a few different meaning. One thing an alliance isn't is a nation state.

I disagree.

Which episode is it from?

Spot261, when I say writer's intent (or original actor's or whatever), that doesn't mean only what's said behind the scenes but what makes it to the screen. Again, Khan recognized Chekov before he was on the show, and Montalban played it that way. That's what's there.

When I watch TOS and they refer to money, I know "officially" Kirk is using a figure of speech or Mudd is after it because he wants it rather than needs it, or because he's not a Federation citizen, but I also watch it "technically" as originally written and performed.

 

[Tallguy]

In the episode Attached, Picard said all the previous members had been unified when they joined the Federation , no mention was made (in that episode) that unified meant a one world goverrnment. Beverly in the same scene indicated that "unified" referred to the people of a entering member.Not really, an alliance does have a few different meaning. One thing an alliance isn't is a nation state.

I disagree.

Which episode is it from?

Spot261, when I say writer's intent (or original actor's or whatever), that doesn't mean only what's said behind the scenes but what makes it to the screen. Again, Khan recognized Chekov before he was on the show, and Montalban played it that way. That's what's there.

When I watch TOS and they refer to money, I know "officially" Kirk is using a figure of speech or Mudd is after it because he wants it rather than needs it, or because he's not a Federation citizen, but I also watch it "technically" as originally written and performed.

See, now THAT'S off topic. (But interesting.)

 

[Spot261]

I disagree.

Which episode is it from?

Spot261, when I say writer's intent (or original actor's or whatever), that doesn't mean only what's said behind the scenes but what makes it to the screen. Again, Khan recognized Chekov before he was on the show, and Montalban played it that way. That's what's there.

When I watch TOS and they refer to money, I know "officially" Kirk is using a figure of speech or Mudd is after it because he wants it rather than needs it, or because he's not a Federation citizen, but I also watch it "technically" as originally written and performed.

But you don't KNOW, you interpret what's there and and then assert that as the onlypossible way that scene could be read. You do not KNOW what Khan means any more than I or anyone else does, all we have is a line which is open to being read many ways, several of which are arguably valid.

Nor do you know what Kirk means any better than I do, nor Scotty, who is in fact very precise and literal about meaning precisely the opposite of your case with nothing anywhere in the entire franchise to call him into doubt.

You keep giving YOUR take on a scene as fact that does not need supported, then picking and choosing how to weight evidence to suit whichever case you are making. I'm sorry to have become so infuriated throughout the thread but you seem oblivious to the fact you keep stating your subjective take on scenes unsupported as fact, then simply dismissing any evidence people present to the contrary, simply saying "it's obviously not meant to be taken that way" and leaving it at that, which is both patronising and frequently patently unsupported.

For example you insist you know what criteria would preclude a planet gaining federation membership, not giving any source for this information because none has ever been published. It's simply your head canon which you aren't arguing in favour of, rather taking it as a given which is then a perfectly valid premise to advance your case. MA is not a canon source, but it references where in the canon it draws from, whereas you have simply offered nothing other than your own insistence that a thing is so, which people must accept.

You've claimed you believe you are refuting counter arguments well, I put it to you that you have done no such thing, you've simply dismissed those arguments, regardless of how well put or evidenced they have been.

 

[Ithekro]

The Khan bit is two ways. Chekov also recognized Khan the moment the helmet comes off, as well and knowing and fearing the crew of the Botany Bay as soon as he sees it. This indicates that he was there. Hearing about it a year or two later from Sulu won't instill that much fear in Chekov. Being there the day Khan took over the Enterprise would.

People focus on Khan's line about never forgetting a face, but tend to forget how Chekov was reacting to the situation.

 

[Arpy]

You do not KNOW what Khan means any more than I or anyone else does, all we have is a line which is open to being read many ways, several of which are arguably valid.

Ricardo Montalban was not thinking, "Oh, I saw Chekov in the hall that one time before he ever joined the show," when he was playing the scene. That's not how he played the part and there is a single objective way he did, even if as a viewer you can subjectively choose to view it your own way watching later.

Nor do you know what Kirk means any better than I do, nor Scotty, who is in fact very precise and literal about meaning precisely the opposite of your case with nothing anywhere in the entire franchise to call him into doubt.

Are you referring to impulse again? You seem to think because an actor read a [bad] line he's an actual warp scientist with credibility. I've gone over why impulse means impulse and will not again.

For example you insist you know what criteria would preclude a planet gaining federation membership, not giving any source for this information because none has ever been published. It's simply your head canon which you aren't arguing in favour of, rather taking it as a given which is then a perfectly valid premise to advance your case. MA is not a canon source, but it references where in the canon it draws from, whereas you have simply offered nothing other than your own insistence that a thing is so, which people must accept.

MA doesn't explain the strong and weak nuclear forces either but I assume they're still true in the Trek universe. Am I wrong to do so because no one has ever stated it is? It's unlikely that the Federation, which is time an again presented as a benevolent liberal society, is for example genocidally homophobic because MA doesn't state otherwise. The way story is told, the way an actor plays a part, which stories are told, through all these things and more one can logically infer meaning.

You've claimed you believe you are refuting counter arguments well, I put it to you that you have done no such thing, you've simply dismissed those arguments, regardless of how well put or evidenced they have been.

You claim that you're being logical (I'm sure that's a comfortable flag to wrap around oneself) when I put it to you that you're being as obtusely argumentative and subjective as anyone. I get what you're saying; do you get what I am?

 

[Spot261]

Ricardo Montalban was not thinking, "Oh, I saw Chekov in the hall that one time before he ever joined the show," when he was playing the scene. That's not how he played the part and there is a single objective way he did, even if as a viewer you can subjectively choose to view it yo

No you don't. You are simply insisting that your take is correct. Again.

Are you referring to impulse again? You seem to think because an actor read a [bad] line he's an actual warp scientist with credibility. I've gone over why impulse means impulse and will not again.

I've said or inferred nothing of the sort, I've said your assessment relies on assuming exactly what "simple impulse" means. As there had never prior been an instance of impulse NOT being FTL capable then at that point it was, merely slower than warp. Later iterations and convention generally led us to see impulse engines as being sublight only(although I'm hard pushed to think of an explicit statement), but even there we have no way of knowing that "simple impulse" as a power source and "impulse engines" are necessarily the same thing.

MA doesn't explain the strong and weak nuclear forces either but I assume they're still true in the Trek universe. Am I wrong to do so because no one has ever stated it is? It's unlikely that the Federation, which is time an again presented as a benevolent liberal society, is for example genocidally homophobic because MA doesn't state otherwise. The way story is told, the way an actor plays a part, which stories are told, through all these things and more one can logically infer meaning.

Except what canon sources we do have sit in outright opposition to you. The federation does NOT micromanage details of a society, merely asks that it's high level policies are reasonably compatible with the federations. I never mentioned genocide, that's a blatant strawman, but arranged marriages and cultural inequalities categorically do exist.

 

[Tenacity]

You claim that you're being logical (I'm sure that's a comfortable flag to wrap around oneself)

But don't we all feel the same concerning our own thoughts.

You see somethings in Star Trek that others don't. Things that are interpretations on your part based on actually evidence, and other things that are assumptions that come from complete thin air. It's the Star Trek that you want there to be.

There nothing wrong with having a personal "head canon," as long as you realize and admit that's what it is.

Ricardo Montalban was not thinking, "Oh, I saw Chekov in the hall that one time before he ever joined the show,"

When we saw Yeoman Rand for the first time, Captain Kirk already knew who she was, even though we never saw their first meeting.

When Chekov saw Khan for the first time (after the removal of his mask) Chekov knew on sight that this person was Khan. There were two older men standing behind Chekov, apparently Chekov didn't think either of them was Khan. When Khan saw Chekov for the first time he recognized him and was quickly able to correctly come up with his name.

Even though Space Seed and Amok Time were produced seven months apart, I think the obvious conclusion is that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise at the time of Space Seed, and that Khan and Chekov were at least briefly in each others presence. Even though we never saw their first meeting.

Now that is admittedly a assumption, and fans have come up with other possibilities, but I think it's a reasonable one based upon presented evidence.

 

[1001001]

And, of course....none of this is real.

Just sayin'...

 

[Spot261]

And, of course....none of this is real.

Just sayin'...

You're not really a trekkie are you?

 

[Tallguy]

You're not really a trekkie are you?

Probably not. But might be a true Scotsman.

 

[Arpy]

Ricardo Montalban was not thinking, "Oh, I saw Chekov in the hall that one time before he ever joined the show," when he was playing the scene. That's not how he played the part and there is a single objective way he did, even if as a viewer you can subjectively choose to view it yo

No you don't. You are simply insisting that your take is correct. Again.

Actually, I do. Much like Alexander Siddig wasn’t thinking “This is how I’ll play genetically engineered Bashir covering” in the early seasons before he was ever written that way. You can watch the early seasons and pretend Siddig was playing it covering, but he wasn’t.

Are you referring to impulse again? You seem to think because an actor read a [bad] line he's an actual warp scientist with credibility. I've gone over why impulse means impulse and will not again.

I've said or inferred nothing of the sort, I've said your assessment relies on assuming exactly what "simple impulse" means. As there had never prior been an instance of impulse NOT being FTL capable then at that point it was, merely slower than warp. Later iterations and convention generally led us to see impulse engines as being sublight only(although I'm hard pushed to think of an explicit statement), but even there we have no way of knowing that "simple impulse" as a power source and "impulse engines" are necessarily the same thing.

This is an interesting idea that I’d have to review TOS before accepting, but I’m pretty sure the scene was written to explain that the Romulans were traveling at sublight and therefore couldn’t get away easy and therefore were still an engage-able match for the Enterprise, and that’s why Kirk went after them, cloak be damned. Which is what I stated earlier — I’m done talking about this.

MA doesn't explain the strong and weak nuclear forces either but I assume they're still true in the Trek universe. Am I wrong to do so because no one has ever stated it is? It's unlikely that the Federation, which is time an again presented as a benevolent liberal society, is for example genocidally homophobic because MA doesn't state otherwise. The way story is told, the way an actor plays a part, which stories are told, through all these things and more one can logically infer meaning.

Except what canon sources we do have sit in outright opposition to you. The federation does NOT micromanage details of a society, merely asks that it's high level policies are reasonably compatible with the federations. I never mentioned genocide, that's a blatant strawman, but arranged marriages and cultural inequalities categorically do exist.

The genocide was specifically an uncharacteristic example to prove a point; it does not qualify as a straw man. Cross-species inequalities could exist because they’re different species that require them. It’s not for humans or Betazoids to judge if, say, Aaamazzarites need to devour their mates after procreation.

You claim that you're being logical (I'm sure that's a comfortable flag to wrap around oneself)

But don't we all feel the same concerning our own thoughts.

You see somethings in Star Trek that others don't. Things that are interpretations on your part based on actually evidence, and other things that are assumptions that come from complete thin air. It's the Star Trek that you want there to be.

There nothing wrong with having a personal "head canon," as long as you realize and admit that's what it is.

I have nothing against fans arguing for their interpretation of canon - it’s what writers working on the shows do - but I think I’m going by what I see, not making things up, which is the accusation from Spot that irks me.

Ricardo Montalban was not thinking, "Oh, I saw Chekov in the hall that one time before he ever joined the show,”

When we saw Yeoman Rand for the first time, Captain Kirk already knew who she was, even though we never saw their first meeting.

When Chekov saw Khan for the first time (after the removal of his mask) Chekov knew on sight that this person was Khan. There were two older men standing behind Chekov, apparently Chekov didn't think either of them was Khan. When Khan saw Chekov for the first time he recognized him and was quickly able to correctly come up with his name.

Even though Space Seed and Amok Time were produced seven months apart, I think the obvious conclusion is that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise at the time of Space Seed, and that Khan and Chekov were at least briefly in each others presence. Even though we never saw their first meeting.

Now that is admittedly a assumption, and fans have come up with other possibilities, but I think it's a reasonable one based upon presented evidence.

I take your assumption as a possibility if I absolutely need to make it work that way for me. (Other possibilities include that Q placed the images of the characters in each other’s heads because he just felt like it, or that TWoK took place in an alternate universe in which Chekov was on the bridge for the episode, or that they were both faking only having read about the other, or that a flying spaghetti monster did it, etc. If any of these or others are explicitly stated what happened, then that’s what happened in-universe.)

What I am not understanding is why fan would lie to himself, saying that they can see Montalban playing it in a way they came up with to make the dialogue work for them. Occam's Razor, if nothing else, should tell you that it was a simple writing snafu or conscious decision for the story’s sake. Unless you’re a solipsist, you can well-enough assume that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster. He played it as most general audiences took it — that Chekov, who had by that point become part of the popular unit, was one of the bastards that did this to him (how did he know his name if he was just a face in the hallway, and wasn’t it stated when he did show up months later that he’d just showed up?) and that’s what you SEE. You can reinterpret it, by choice, so that the Gospel of TOS remains perfect to you, but that’s not what was produced and objectively there.

 

[Ithekro]

Chekov shows up on bridge duty for Season Two. He could easily have been on other duties beforehand. The are any number of places on the Enterprise Khan could have encountered a young Ensign named Chekov. There was a bit of the jump in the story between Khan cutting off the bridge and then holding the crew captive with his supermen.

 

[Tenacity]

Cross-species inequalities could exist because they’re different species that require them. It’s not for humans or Betazoids to judge if, say, Aaamazzarites need to devour their mates after procreation.

So Human society could have a requirement that women not be made starship captains and this wouldn't be the business of any other Federation member? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

What I am not understanding is why fan would lie to himself, saying that they can see Montalban playing it in a way they came up with to make the dialogue work for them

Who ever said that Montalban was doing any such thing?

The script said Khan recognized Chekov from previously seeing his face. From his face Khan was able to recalled Chekov's name, that's it.

One idea is that Khan memorized the Enterprise's personnel records, and never personally met Chekov, but that would still have require Chekov to have been aboard during Space Seed. Another idea is that Khan memorized all of Starfleet's personnel records, including the Academy, but then why didn't he recognize Terrell?

Neither of those scenarios explains how Chekov recognized Khan on sight.

Khan was able (in some way) to have known Chekov's face and name prior to going into exile, and this would have been before the actual creation of the character of Chekov.

 

[Spot261]

The genocide was specifically an uncharacteristic example to prove a point; it does not qualify as a straw man.

It's almost a textbook definition of strawman. Nothing was aid that in anyway would make the genocide connection remotely comparable.

Actually, I do. Much like Alexander Siddig wasn’t thinking “This is how I’ll play genetically engineered Bashir covering” in the early seasons before he was ever written that way. You can watch the early seasons and pretend Siddig was playing it covering, but he wasn’t.

No, not unless you are a time travelling telepath you don't. Even then how he intended the line is a complete irelevence because it still doesn't alter the fact that the line is open to interpretation and of several possible interpretations, there are some that makes sense and some that don't. Mine falls into the former category, yours the second.

You can reinterpret it, by choice, so that the Gospel of TOS remains perfect to you, but that’s not what was produced and objectively there.

Well, no, RE interpretation requires that I had interpreted it your way first then changed my mind. You interpreted it one way, others another. You are claiming yours is shared by the majority of the fan base, yet that proposition is hardly supported by the reaction you have gained here from members of that fan base. That's arrogant, presumptive and patronising. If my reaction irks you, consider the way you have presented yourself throughout the thread.

As for "objective":

From Dictionary.com:
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Therefore not a term that is appropriate to interpretations of an actor's performance in a role. It's a strange twisting of the language to use it that way.

 

[Arpy]

It's almost a textbook definition of strawman. Nothing was aid that in anyway would make the genocide connection remotely comparable.

Incorrect. You are saying that anything not explicitly stated on screen is open to interpretation. I’m saying that’s a very limited way of looking at what is on screen and giving you an example of something that clears your definition but is likely not so, bolstering also my definition. “No, it’s never been stated that the Federation isn’t for homophobic genocide, but going by everything else they’ve said and done, I can say with confidence that it would be uncharacteristic to think it is.”

No, not unless you are a time travelling telepath you don’t.

Even then, how could I be sure another telepath wasn’t feeding me false data to only make me think that’s what I was reading? Truly, these are the times that try sentients' souls.

Cross-species inequalities could exist because they’re different species that require them. It’s not for humans or Betazoids to judge if, say, Aaamazzarites need to devour their mates after procreation.

So Human society could have a requirement that women not be made starship captains and this wouldn't be the business of any other Federation member? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

I’m saying that because there is no biological reason for women not being starship captains, if humans had that law, they themselves would not be eligible for Federation membership. Biology, not culture, is the key factor.

What I am not understanding is why fan would lie to himself, saying that they can see Montalban playing it in a way they came up with to make the dialogue work for them

Who ever said that Montalban was doing any such thing?
The script said Khan recognized Chekov from previously seeing his face. From his face Khan was able to recalled Chekov's name, that's it.

It’s Star Trek II. Our heroes are once again thrown into epic adventure for the world to marvel at while enjoying fine concession stand foods. In this installment, the evil Khan returns, and, gasp, he hasn’t forgotten our heroes or the vengeful fire that burns in his heart. First up, Chekov steps into the snake pit! …That’s what’s on screen. It had no in-universe consideration, and unless your an anal viewer (which we clearly are, but most aren’t) you’re glossing over the logical misstep. That’s it. I think what we’re arguing about - I’ve really forgotten by this point - is whether you should watch the show with one foot in the real world or not. What I’m saying boils down to that to best judge its quality, you should. Am I wrong in this?


Finally, point by point aside, I'm really not enjoying this thread much at this point. We haven't thrown expletives at one another, but, speaking for myself, I'm not really liking you guys very much at this point, and I do find regret at this. I've said well more than everything I wanted or want to say at this point. I look forward to your replies.