Irony in "The Ultimate Computer"

[Gotham Central]

In "The Ultimate Computer" Spock says that his only regret about the state of computing technology was that it was not able to successfully replace the ship's surgeon. Yet, fast forward 80 years and in fact the ONLY position on starships that ended up being successful replaced by a computer program was the Chief Medical Officer. Was this little bit of irony on the part of the producers intentional?

 

[Knight Templar]

In "The Ultimate Computer" Spock says that his only regret about the state of computing technology was that it was not able to successfully replace the ship's surgeon. Yet, fast forward 80 years and in fact the ONLY position on starships that ended up being successful replaced by a computer program was the Chief Medical Officer. Was this little bit of irony on the part of the producers intentional?

I doubt that Berman, Piller, and Taylor gave a seconds thought to a closing line from an original series episode.

 

[-Brett-]

Was this little bit of irony on the part of the producers intentional?

Probably not.

 

[C.E. Evans]

They may not even have seen "The Ultimate Computer."

 

[Knight Templar]

They may not even have seen "The Ultimate Computer."

They might have. IIRC, Jeri Taylor (who along with Berman & Piller created Voyager) mentioned when she started writing for Star Trek sitting down and watching all 300 hours or so of Star Trek aired up to that time.

But watching hundreds of hours of Star Trek all in one gulp I think gives one a radically different perspective than being a fan for 20 years.

 

[C.E. Evans]

They may not even have seen "The Ultimate Computer."

They might have. IIRC, Jeri Taylor (who along with Berman & Piller created Voyager) mentioned when she started writing for Star Trek sitting down and watching all 300 hours or so of Star Trek aired up to that time.

But watching hundreds of hours of Star Trek all in one gulp I think gives one a radically different perspective than being a fan for 20 years.

It may start to all blur together that way. Specific details in various episodes are sometimes remembered only after being watched more than once (or discussed among fans).

 

[Knight Templar]

They may not even have seen "The Ultimate Computer."

They might have. IIRC, Jeri Taylor (who along with Berman & Piller created Voyager) mentioned when she started writing for Star Trek sitting down and watching all 300 hours or so of Star Trek aired up to that time.

But watching hundreds of hours of Star Trek all in one gulp I think gives one a radically different perspective than being a fan for 20 years.

It may start to all blur together that way. Specific details in various episodes are sometimes remembered only after being watched more than once (or discussed among fans).

Agreed.

I've been following Star Trek long enough to find interesting just how much perspectives change regarding an original episode over the years.

People taking different looks at the legal proceedings and plot developments in the thread on "Courtmartial" being just one example.

Another thing I think is that when you watch the 79 original episodes, then the 178 or so ST:TNG episodes, then the 174 DS9 episodes.....and so on is that you can get awfully cynical and overly critical of the orginal series. Faulting the series too much for their special effects, production values, and all that.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Another thing I think is that when you watch the 79 original episodes, then the 178 or so ST:TNG episodes, then the 174 DS9 episodes.....and so on is that you can get awfully cynical and overly critical of the orginal series. Faulting the series too much for their special effects, production values, and all that.

For me, it was the opposite. I developed an even greater appreciation of TOS for its stories and characters after seeing later shows. IMO, it was natural (and to be expected) that visually things would improve after TOS.

 

[Knight Templar]

Another thing I think is that when you watch the 79 original episodes, then the 178 or so ST:TNG episodes, then the 174 DS9 episodes.....and so on is that you can get awfully cynical and overly critical of the orginal series. Faulting the series too much for their special effects, production values, and all that.

For me, it was the opposite. I developed an even greater appreciation of TOS for its stories and characters after seeing later shows. IMO, it was natural (and to be expected) that visually things would improve after TOS.

Then you're one of the few I've heard.

From others I've heard endless complaints about "plywood sets" and "bad matte work" and "poor use of stock footage" of people who go back and watch the original .

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, it was the opposite. I developed an even greater appreciation of TOS for its stories and characters after seeing later shows. IMO, it was natural (and to be expected) that visually things would improve after TOS.

Then you're one of the few I've heard.

From others I've heard endless complaints about "plywood sets" and "bad matte work" and "poor use of stock footage" of people who go back and watch the original .

There are quite a few people who developed a greater appreciation for TOS, but they don't make a big deal about it on the 'net (complaints always outweigh compliments anyway).

The funny thing about "plywood (or cardboard) sets" is that Hollywood construction materials really haven't changed since TOS. The sets for every Trek series and film--including Star Trek XI--are still primarily wood and paint.

 

[bbailey861]

Then you're one of the few I've heard.

From others I've heard endless complaints about "plywood sets" and "bad matte work" and "poor use of stock footage" of people who go back and watch the original .

There are quite a few people who developed a greater appreciation for TOS, but they don't make a big deal about it on the 'net (complaints always outweigh compliments anyway).

The funny thing about "plywood (or cardboard) sets" is that Hollywood construction materials really haven't changed since TOS. The sets for every Trek series and film--including Star Trek XI--are still primarily wood and paint.

And there are also those of us who have always had a greater appreciation for TOS since we saw it for the first time in the 60s. I find that it is usually the 'younger' audience that seems to find fault with the series that started it all.

It is certain, that with the advent of the modern hardware and transmission systems available it is easy to see the limitations that were present in '60s technology. So what. Star Trek in the late 60's was visually magnificent and even then, it wasn't until it was in syndication in the very early '70s that I got to see it in colour. It was, and still is great storytelling.

And as for the OP's original question. While the observation is interesting, I don't think it was intentional that it was the CMO who was first 'digitized'.

 

[nightwind1]

TOS is still my favorite of all the Treks, and I've been a fan since September, 1966. I've seen all of the subsequent Treks, and I'm still drawn back to TOS.

One of the reasons I like New Voyages/Phase II as well.