G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
This has bugged me for a while: I'm willing to suspend my viewer's disbelief to some extent for the good of storytelling. But sometimes Trek tries to find in-universe explanations for things that in my opinion should actually just have been brushed under the carpet, because they raise far more questions than they answer.
I'm fully aware Trek isn't hard sci-fi and that it actually makes some pretty big blunders ("increase the signal by 1 to the 4th power", "the inner quadrant of the galaxy", "we've entered a space-time continuum."). I'm willing to pretend I didn't just hear that, because I'm trying to enjoy the show without going into the thousand ways it doesn't make sense.
I'm willing to just roll with transportation being a thing without mentioning the huge can of worms that comes with if you really think about it. Some episodes hint at that can of worms, but overall I believe it's better left untouched.
I'm willing to accept that very most alien species are humanoid. I can see that A) it's a matter of budget and production, and B) "humans with a twist" is most of the time going to make more interesting TV than "conscious gas cloud" or "race of uranium-241 dodecahedrons". Most people can relate more to humanoids than to dodecahedrons, myself included. It's a TV show that needs to appeal to some major part of the audience if it wants to survive, I can totally see that.
Point is: most aliens are humanoid, yeah that's just how it is because it's a TV show, and I don't need (or even want) some weird in-universe explanation why that is the case. But then, TNG decided it has to somehow explain this and came up with something that raises more questions than it answers. It raises doubts about evolution as we understand it, possibly even promoting some sci-fi version of intelligent design. Was that really necessary, let alone helpful?
In my opinion, this is something that should have just remained unmentioned. That way, I'd feel actually less cognitive dissonance/disbelief.
Or take the Klingon head ridges. It's obvious that the first movie had far higher production values than the original TV series, and they redesigned the Klingons. I'm fine with that.
That DS9 episode mentioned the discrepance, but Worf's answer is "we don't discuss it with outsiders". I took this as a "don't ask" wink to the audience, I laughed and I was fine with it.
But then ENT decided to find a canon explanation for it that I found pretty nonsensical and contrived, and most of all, trying to canonise something that was simply about production value. Klingons without ridges never had to be canon, until ENT decided they had to be. If ENT tries to make no-ridge TOS Klingons canon,
I have to ask: why stop there? What is the canon explanation for TOS Klingons smearing their faces with dark brown paint? Star Trek, why don't you explain this to me?
Or take languages. There's a TOS episode about a parallel Earth where the Roman Empire is still ruling in the 22nd century. Spock makes a comment about how their English is exactly the same as that of contemporary humans from Earth, citing some made up law of development that states that civilisations develop in the exact same way independently of each other.
Not only is it ludicrously unlikely that some alien planet in the 2260s has the exact same English as that of 2260s Earth, it also raises the questions: Why is 2260s Earth English the same as 1960s Earth English? If culture development is exactly the same, why is the Roman Empire still ruling this planet in the 2260s? And why the hell do the Romans speak English?
There would have been one simple solution to avoid all this: just not comment on them speaking English. Just leave it be. I never think about all the alien species speaking English unless the episode decides to bring my attention to it and to the myriad of things that follow that don't make any sense.
Sorry for rambling. I'm asking: Do you prefer if Trek tries to explain these things or would you rather it just didn't mention it?
edit: added spoiler tags.
edit 2: removed spoiler tags again after feedback
I'm fully aware Trek isn't hard sci-fi and that it actually makes some pretty big blunders ("increase the signal by 1 to the 4th power", "the inner quadrant of the galaxy", "we've entered a space-time continuum."). I'm willing to pretend I didn't just hear that, because I'm trying to enjoy the show without going into the thousand ways it doesn't make sense.
I'm willing to just roll with transportation being a thing without mentioning the huge can of worms that comes with if you really think about it. Some episodes hint at that can of worms, but overall I believe it's better left untouched.
I'm willing to accept that very most alien species are humanoid. I can see that A) it's a matter of budget and production, and B) "humans with a twist" is most of the time going to make more interesting TV than "conscious gas cloud" or "race of uranium-241 dodecahedrons". Most people can relate more to humanoids than to dodecahedrons, myself included. It's a TV show that needs to appeal to some major part of the audience if it wants to survive, I can totally see that.
Point is: most aliens are humanoid, yeah that's just how it is because it's a TV show, and I don't need (or even want) some weird in-universe explanation why that is the case. But then, TNG decided it has to somehow explain this and came up with something that raises more questions than it answers. It raises doubts about evolution as we understand it, possibly even promoting some sci-fi version of intelligent design. Was that really necessary, let alone helpful?
In my opinion, this is something that should have just remained unmentioned. That way, I'd feel actually less cognitive dissonance/disbelief.
Or take the Klingon head ridges. It's obvious that the first movie had far higher production values than the original TV series, and they redesigned the Klingons. I'm fine with that.
That DS9 episode mentioned the discrepance, but Worf's answer is "we don't discuss it with outsiders". I took this as a "don't ask" wink to the audience, I laughed and I was fine with it.
But then ENT decided to find a canon explanation for it that I found pretty nonsensical and contrived, and most of all, trying to canonise something that was simply about production value. Klingons without ridges never had to be canon, until ENT decided they had to be. If ENT tries to make no-ridge TOS Klingons canon,
I have to ask: why stop there? What is the canon explanation for TOS Klingons smearing their faces with dark brown paint? Star Trek, why don't you explain this to me?
Or take languages. There's a TOS episode about a parallel Earth where the Roman Empire is still ruling in the 22nd century. Spock makes a comment about how their English is exactly the same as that of contemporary humans from Earth, citing some made up law of development that states that civilisations develop in the exact same way independently of each other.
Not only is it ludicrously unlikely that some alien planet in the 2260s has the exact same English as that of 2260s Earth, it also raises the questions: Why is 2260s Earth English the same as 1960s Earth English? If culture development is exactly the same, why is the Roman Empire still ruling this planet in the 2260s? And why the hell do the Romans speak English?
There would have been one simple solution to avoid all this: just not comment on them speaking English. Just leave it be. I never think about all the alien species speaking English unless the episode decides to bring my attention to it and to the myriad of things that follow that don't make any sense.
Sorry for rambling. I'm asking: Do you prefer if Trek tries to explain these things or would you rather it just didn't mention it?
edit: added spoiler tags.
edit 2: removed spoiler tags again after feedback
Last edited by a moderator:
