History of Star Trek having no "money"
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
- Status
I'd rather not we go around in circles. The primary intent of the line was that given the Romulans only have impulse, "Yes, captain, we can still engage them. (We're not going to consider the implications of how long it should actually take them to get around.) Will that be blue phasers or red in this one?" What is your in-universe explanation for happened to the Romulans' warp anyway? The nacelles were there. It'd take years for them to get back home, let alone between attack points. Why no mention of a tug or rescue ship or what have you on their end? Or discussion on the Enterprise about how they could have done what they did without warp or how long it'd take to fix it if they had it and it was out?
I can see the beauty of it just fine. I can also appreciate all the different versions of a team logo or ancient art or what have you. I could even produce new art in that style in post-modern tip of my hat to it. But if I'm designing a new ship today, I'm not going to ignore everything that's happened between 1966 and today. TOS used a tweaked version of the original design in the series proper. Jeffries himself, if you gave him unlimited time and money, would have created something different back then as well. Appreciating these things does not [need to] detract from one's appreciation of the original.
The show presented a concept of a world better in many ways than that in which it was broadcast. That's the part that seemed to really resonate with the greater public. We all love a little sex and swash-bucklering, and lots of shows have had it since, but why ignore the other part?
And thank goodness for it, but cute little lines like that and the one about female captains in "Turnabout Intruder" and the miniskirts and a thousand other things do make the show a product of its time. If you forced the writers to site down an explicitly declare every little thing about it, you'd get a mishmash of attempts at progressivism and contemporary popular and network norms that'd make the show a lot less serviceable (or alive) today.
Sources please. This is one of those things that's he said she said. The network maybe doesn't admit post women's movement to something that made them look bad back in the day, especially if they have a seemingly legitimate reason for their move. Where were the other female starship captains or in-charge professionals on the network's other shows to prove their point?
And it is better in some ways. Materially comfortable, medically advanced, technologically amazing. At the same time it wasn't perfect by any means. The things I noted in my previous post and more problems beyond those.
I'm not, that part is part of the overall mix. I just don't pretend that that part is all there is.
But at the same time in Balance of Terror, of the few symbols on the chapel wall behind the alter, a recognizable cross is one of them. Monotheism.
And in Bread and Circuses, the reveal that "the sun" was actually "the Son of God (Christ) was met will approval by the senior officers present. Monotheism.
Last edited:
I'very covered all that in previous posts, the whole point of my case is that no theory is required, it's only fan nit picking that has led to the belief one is. Where there is no discrepancy, there is no need to reconcile the facts.
What is presented on screen works the way it is once you remove the assumption scotty's line means no ftl drive. We don'the actually have anywhere near enough knowledge to fully examine what "simple impulse power" means and all the episode tells us is that it makes the romulans ship slower than the enterprise.
Given he is seemingly happy with knowing the romulans have been travelling ftl and he is by definition an expert on space propulsion who sees no problem with this, nor should we.
None of this even goes anywhere near suggesting romulans can't produce conventional warp drives, as you point out the nacelles strongly suggest they can, as does the rest of the Canon, merely that this particular ship is using something other than the standard warp drive.
None of this requires me to theorise, merely to distinguish between what we know and what we assume.
Spot, have you seen Ground Hog day?
I'm claiming that science-fiction needs the science part to be science-fiction. The movie Looper has humans using time machines in the far off distant future of 2044. There are different degrees of realism, and at some point you cross from sci-fi to fantasy, even if you're dealing with spaceships instead of elves.
That's the point I'm trying to make. That's EXACTLY what he's saying. I'm guessing you're not computing it because it's so ridiculous.
The episode tells you it's slower than the Enterprise because it's traveling AT IMPULSE POWER. We know exactly what that means.
What? Soliton Waves? It's using IMPULSE.
You are assuming they mean something other than they do in order to make it make sense: what would the lines need to be for you to categorize them simply under bad writing?
I understand watching Trek as presented. And I don't think there's such a thing as "perfect humans" that are so without addressing their imperfections or somehow magically don't have any. But for me, Trek's always been about a future in which we address them. TOS did as good a job as it could presenting a better future. Subsequent series/movies did better jobs still (i.e. a gay character in ST: Beyond). In my mind, though in no way presented in the series, there were gay people in TOS. If Trek were to do a "Trials and Tribble-ations" episode today, they might include a gay character in TOS, even if TOS didn't permit it itself, and that's a good thing.
Similarly with money, to bring this clunker back to its original intent, if Kirk says in TVH they don't use money, then when Nick Meyer's anachronistic TUC comes along and Scotty says he "just bought a boat," I'm taking it to mean they don't use it in the Federation and he bought it abroad or it's a figure of speech or something -- when you say I'm gonna kill that guy, you don't literally mean it...usually.
Who?
Vice Admiral Lori Ciana. Kirk's wife who was killed in the transporter accident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. GR (in the TMP novel) said that their marriage was a standard contract marriage (I forget if it was a year or six months or what).
Never heard anything like that before.... thats all from the novel? In the movie it was no one important.... definitely didn't seem played liked Kirk just lost a lover / wife (wtf??) .... the more I hear about the TMP novelization... the more bizarre it sounds....
While I remember two friends greeting each other with a hug, in what scene was this "gay character?"
Kirk witnessed a woman using coins to make a purchase from a vending machine, I took his comments to be a reference to physical money.
In the restaurant with Gillian, of course the future doesn't use US bank notes. Which was Gillian's money.
I took it to mean Scotty was on Earth, and used money (on Earth) to purchase a boat that he would then enjoy on Earth.
In my head-canon, they were brothers ...........
I believe it was meant to imply that they were in a relationship and raising a daughter together.
Sulu's a BIG ol' GAY, fellas. Deal with it. Or die ignorant. No archangel's gonna come down to explain it to you.
And Scotty could do whatever he wanted. TUC was its own alternate universe. Everything looked gray and moody, Kirk was a racist, the Federation "inalienable," and the Klingons got less ridgy ridges. Oh, and Shatner telling a head-of-state "People can be afraid of change" like she's a six year old...she should have killed him where he stood for that, his saving her life be damned with Fek'lhr.
And Scotty could do whatever he wanted. TUC was its own alternate universe. Everything looked gray and moody, Kirk was a racist, the Federation "inalienable," and the Klingons got less ridgy ridges. Oh, and Shatner telling a head-of-state "People can be afraid of change" like she's a six year old...she should have killed him where he stood for that, his saving her life be damned with Fek'lhr.
WITH HIS BROTHER ????????
Love instructors, dude. It's all about the love instructors.
That wasn't Sulu's brother, it was indeed his lover. This has been confirmed by everyone, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Justin Lin and Doug Jung (Pegg's co-writer who also played Sulu's lover in the scene).
Where did it say in the movie Star Trek Beyond that the man that Sulu greeted was his brother? I was under the impression, although nothing was explicitly said in the movie (it was in reviews), that it was his partner and their daughter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
