Things I Hate About Star Trek

[Saito S]

I might throw my own list of "hated" stuff in later, but for now, I wanted to just touch on a couple of things that have already been said:

-- Romance. They only ever get it right when it's built up naturally. Worf/Dax worked well because it wasn't forced and they were good, well-written characters. Ditto Tom/B'Elanna and Odo/Kira (though they only JUST get away with it). We cared. We don't care when a Mirror Bareil turns up and smarms his way into Kira's bed or a Trill ambassador has Deanna's knickers off by Act Two. No. Just stop now.

Just to nitpick - it was Crusher who was being schlupped by a Trill for half of a TNG episode. And while your examples of bad romances are good, I think you're forgetting quite a few that were done well, particularly some of the Picard ones, such as Picard and the stellar cartography commander (can't spell her name) and Picard with Vash. There was a nice, but short little love story between Captain Kirk and Edith Keeler as well, and I dug what was done with Sisko and Kassidy Yates. I wouldn't say Star Trek was generally bad at romance, there were just a few very memorable examples of bad romance, like those ones you mentioned.

I think what both of you might be getting at to some degree is how I generally feel about romance in Trek. It's not so much that "romance", in general, is the problem. It's the "romance of the week" that has just got to go. Picard's little interlude with Neela/Nella was interesting, and pretty well done (and at least she was someone who lived on the ship). But these eps (all the series have them) where one of the main characters falls head over heels for the guest character whom they met like twenty minutes ago, and then through a series of events that inevitably range from contrived to unbelievable, break off the "relationship" by the end of the ep (since, naturally, the main cast member has to leave when the ship leaves, whereas the guest character/love interest must stay behind/can't abandon their people now/will die if they try to leave their planet/etc etc etc )... that stuff is just ridiculous. It's never been a good idea upon which to base a story, and doesn't work in Trek any better than it does in anything else.

One thing that bugs me is the stardate system. One stardate unit is a day, but 1,000 equal a year? Stardate 48973 (from AGT) implies the "stardate epoch" was almost 49 years prior, so would Picard's day of birth be a negative stardate? And it's impossible to reconcile TNG stardates with TOS stardates...

(edit: maybe it was 48963)

I think that the idea of stardates is good conceptually. And if you look at only the first ep of TNG on, there is a consistency there with regard to how much time has gone by vs. the stardate. But it's weird why they chose to sort of throw them in starting with the 40k range, since - as you pointed out kitsune - that would mean that Picard's DOB - not to mention the entire TOS era - would be before "year zero." The only explanation that really makes sense, in-universe, is that they "recalibrated" the stardate system at some point prior to TNG season one (like they did with the warp speed scale), but one wonders why - out of universe - the show producers didn't simply begin the series with a number that meshed better with the timeline they were working with.

Where did you get that one stardate unit was equal to one day? I remember hearing that 1000=one year many times, but never that 1=one day... Obviously, they can't both be true. But since I've heard the year length many times but never the day length, I was curious if you remembered any specific source where you heard/read that...?

 

[FalTorPan]

One thing that bugs me is the stardate system. One stardate unit is a day, but 1,000 equal a year? Stardate 48973 (from AGT) implies the "stardate epoch" was almost 49 years prior, so would Picard's day of birth be a negative stardate? And it's impossible to reconcile TNG stardates with TOS stardates...

(edit: maybe it was 48963)

Stardates have never made sense... by design, at least in the '60s, when we weren't supposed to know the Gregorian calendar years of the five-year mission.

 

[kitsune]

One thing that bugs me is the stardate system. One stardate unit is a day, but 1,000 equal a year? Stardate 48973 [edit: 47988] (from AGT) implies the "stardate epoch" was almost 49 years prior, so would Picard's day of birth be a negative stardate? And it's impossible to reconcile TNG stardates with TOS stardates...

(edit: maybe it was 48963)

I think that the idea of stardates is good conceptually. And if you look at only the first ep of TNG on, there is a consistency there with regard to how much time has gone by vs. the stardate. But it's weird why they chose to sort of throw them in starting with the 40k range, since - as you pointed out kitsune - that would mean that Picard's DOB - not to mention the entire TOS era - would be before "year zero." The only explanation that really makes sense, in-universe, is that they "recalibrated" the stardate system at some point prior to TNG season one (like they did with the warp speed scale), but one wonders why - out of universe - the show producers didn't simply begin the series with a number that meshed better with the timeline they were working with.

Where did you get that one stardate unit was equal to one day? I remember hearing that 1000=one year many times, but never that 1=one day... Obviously, they can't both be true. But since I've heard the year length many times but never the day length, I was curious if you remembered any specific source where you heard/read that...?

Oh, yes, the idea of stardates is fine. It's just the oversights in the implementation that annoy me.

I forget where I read that. I think I may have picked it up from the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

In the TNG era, all Starfleet ships are commissioned at noon, hence the ".5" at the end of the stardate in the bridge dedication plaques.

Here's an article on stardates for you:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Stardate

 

[Michael]

One thing that bugs me is the stardate system. One stardate unit is a day, but 1,000 equal a year? Stardate 48973 (from AGT) implies the "stardate epoch" was almost 49 years prior, so would Picard's day of birth be a negative stardate? And it's impossible to reconcile TNG stardates with TOS stardates...

(edit: maybe it was 48963)

Stardates have never made sense... by design, at least in the '60s, when we weren't supposed to know the Gregorian calendar years of the five-year mission.

Exactly. It was just a way to indicate that the story takes place in the future and to avoid placing the events within a specific year. (Although in TNG the stardates became kind of an in-joke where the second digit always gave the current season.)

 

[Mycobac]

1) Holograms: So, Data and the other Soong-class androids are unique in the galaxy because only Dr. Soong was enough of a genius to be able to design a positronic brain and all other attempts end in catastrophic failure and death. But somehow holograms have no problems with independent thought and action. A "robot" is impossible to build but computer controlled force fields and light projections pose no problem. The whole reason Professor Moriarty was so cool in "Elementary Dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle" was because of the uniqueness of his sentience and the number of unlikely events necessary for him to come into being and be truly sentient. But then all of a sudden every moron with a Windows PC can create sentient holograms that are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from biological life (Vic Fontaine, EMH, that annoying janitor in "Revulsion"). I love Holodeck episodes but holograms should have stayed in the Holodeck as "puppets" rather than people walking around and interacting with everyone. Also, you cannot tell me that the most cost effective way to mine rocks in an asteroid is to install a bunch of forcefield projectors (enough to cover any angle in the mine) which have to be integrated into a super complex computer which has to be able to generate enough computing power to coordinate the actions of dozens of independent characters and which has to run all the subroutines which enable them to think and act independently.

2) Catsuits/Miniskirts: For starters I think women look way more sexy in uniform than in some lame catsuits. But from an "in universe" perspective: I am supposed to believe that Troi, 7 of 9, T'Pol etc... all smart, successful, independent women wake up every morning and decide that the best clothing that they can put on to perform their daily duties is a supertight, spandex, leotard-like outfit that barely allows them to move or even breathe? As far as the TOS mini-skirt uniforms are concerned, they are very sexy, and I would not object if they were just worn on ship (it could simply be that miniskirts were back en vogue in the 23rd century) but taking female crewmembers down to "hell planet of the week" in miniskirts and go-go boots is not just stupid it's negligent and downright criminal. "Oh I’m sorry your skin got shredded by that previously unknown acid spitting bush. I'm just glad I had my pants on". This is especially noticeable when compared to the perfectly practical uniforms worn by Number One and Yeoman Colt in "The Cage". If they had later decided to wear miniskirts as a fashion choice then bravo and enjoy but as a regulation enforced duty uniform it's just ridiculous.

3) Dukat: Gul Dukat is one of the most multi-faceted complex antagonists of any Sci-Fi series, so to turn him from a would be galactic conqueror to a psychopathic horny cult leader is in my opinion one of the greatest wastes of a great character (and a great actor in Marc Alaimo)

4) Shades of Gray: A clip show? Really?

5) Civilian Clothing: Now I know that they wanted to keep it "futuristic" and different looking but practically all civilian clothing in Star Trek (particularly TNG) looks completely stupid. A half-retarded chimp would have more fashion sense than to dress in the horrible crotch-hugging ensembles that Wesley, Jake, and the rest of the civvies would get into and actually go out in public in. In this particular case I think Babylon 5 did a much better job in showing futuristic clothes that, while exotic and different from what you see today, I could see myself wearing without having to hang myself from embarrassment in the bathroom.

6) Borg Queen/Loser Borg: Put me down as one more vote against wussifying the Borg. They went from a terrifying unstoppable force to emo wannabes.

7) Andy Dick: I hate Andy Dick in anything. I HATE Andy Dick in Star Trek.

8) The Janeway/Seven Show: It's ridiculous that the later seasons of Voyager focused almost exclusively on these two characters. "Oh the ship is about to be destroyed? Well Seven you take care of all the stuff in engineering and I'll do everything on the bridge single handedly. The rest of you peons get out of the way." In my opinion, it detracted from the characters of Janeway and Seven by making them unbelievable and it completely wasted all the other characters which could have been getting more personal development. Also, I don't think Seven is that great. She's pretty of course, but she ain't all that.

9) The Malon: So I'm supposed to believe that in that region of space the baddest bad guys are a bunch of people who's biggest industry is polluting? What is this Captain Planet?

10) Forced "Sexiness": Now, I'm no prude. I enjoy gratuitous nudity in movies as much as the next man (maybe even more). But, sometimes the situations which the producers came up with to show a little flesh just made me wince. So, Trip can't sleep and the best Dr. Phlox can think of is to send him to T'Pol's cabin for some semi-nude wrestling......erm, I mean neuropressure therapy? Puh-lease, hasn't he heard of an Ambien? The sad thing is that there were a million other ways in which they could have showcased the lovely ladies of Trek and made it seem perfectly natural.

11) Enterprise getting cancelled after the 4th season: I can understand if they had cancelled it after the 1st season, I can understand if they had cancelled it after the 2nd season, I can even understand if they had cancelled it after the 3rd season, but to cancel it just when it had gotten good was just tragic. The missed opportunities for the 5th season were so tantalizing I still feel sad when I think about them. The Kzinti, the Romulan Wars, the birth of The Federation, Shran as a regular, Empress Hoshi in the Mirror Universe....Argh!

12) Faith of the Heart: Need I say more?

That being said, I love,love,love Star Trek, all series, all movies (well maybe not Final Frontier and Nemesis)

 

[KimMH]

^^^

MOD!!! Mycobac is channeling me! Make it stop!!!

(But I do like Final Frontier and didn't mind Nemesis - it is Trek after all - just have to accept that some Trek is better than other Trek sometimes . . . )

 

[SpaceProg]

I rather liked "Faith of the heart..." *Flame shields up*.

However, I do agree with most of Mycobac posted. He's channeling me too... except for the song bit...

 

[Jaespol]

I hate that there are too few alien crewman in most of the spaceships.

 

[Myasishchev]

That's mostly a budgetary issue, I figure.

Although, in retrospect, DS9 only had one major character who was really human!

Kira, Odo, Dax, Garak, Quark, and Worf of course were Bajoran, Changeling, Trill, Cardassian, Ferengi, and Klingon respectively, but our other two putatively human majors were Bashir, who was an Augment, and Sisko, who was a Space Jesus.

O'Brien's the only one was 100% homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Jaespol]

Yeah thats why it bugged me. DS9 was able to have huge amounts of aliens each episode yet Voyager and TNG had very few aliens on board. Mind you, the Voyager producers couldn't even figure out who was supposed to be on the ship. Damn the continuity on that show was bad.

 

[Too Much Fun]

and Sisko, who was a Space Jesus.

What a brilliant and hilarious description of Sisko! I love it! I think this whole lack of aliens on the crew argument goes a long way to explain why many people may dislike Voyager. It's certainly true in my case. After how much variety in species there was on Deep Space Nine (and even TNG - Troi, Worf, and Data may have been the only ones who weren't simply human, but the writers got a lot of mileage out of that), Voyager comes across as really boring.

 

[Cyke101]

That's mostly a budgetary issue, I figure.

Although, in retrospect, DS9 only had one major character who was really human!

Kira, Odo, Dax, Garak, Quark, and Worf of course were Bajoran, Changeling, Trill, Cardassian, Ferengi, and Klingon respectively, but our other two putatively human majors were Bashir, who was an Augment, and Sisko, who was a Space Jesus.

O'Brien's the only one was 100% homo sapiens sapiens.

No disrespect to any other alien races, but O'Brien comes through yet again. Way to represent, Miles!

 

[Myasishchev]

and Sisko, who was a Space Jesus.

What a brilliant and hilarious description of Sisko!

Ben Sisko and Dave Bowman hang out a lot and talk baseball.

 

[Praetor]

You know, I can't help but wonder if the original Enterprise was actually teeming with alien crew members somewhere below decks? Probably not Vulcans (since there were a couple of plot points that required Spock to be the only Vulcan aboard here and there) but maybe Andorians, Tellarites, Caitians, and whatnot (more akin to the polyglot group we saw on the rec deck in TMP) and it was only budgetary limitations that kept us from seeing them on TOS?

 

[SpaceProg]

I think realistically, that was more of the case, Praetor. Makeup and time in the makeup chair with makeup artists... that would certainly add up.

 

[Cyke101]

You know, I can't help but wonder if the original Enterprise was actually teeming with alien crew members somewhere below decks? Probably not Vulcans (since there were a couple of plot points that required Spock to be the only Vulcan aboard here and there) but maybe Andorians, Tellarites, Caitians, and whatnot (more akin to the polyglot group we saw on the rec deck in TMP) and it was only budgetary limitations that kept us from seeing them on TOS?

Oh, but it sort of implies that Spock is the only non-human in a real leadership position, too. I mean you have a sound theory sure, but it suggests a system where it's easier for humans to advance. Heck, how many non-alien cannon fodder red shirts have we seen?

But I'm not advocating for affirmative action in space. After all, it *is* about budget

 

[Praetor]

You know, I can't help but wonder if the original Enterprise was actually teeming with alien crew members somewhere below decks? Probably not Vulcans (since there were a couple of plot points that required Spock to be the only Vulcan aboard here and there) but maybe Andorians, Tellarites, Caitians, and whatnot (more akin to the polyglot group we saw on the rec deck in TMP) and it was only budgetary limitations that kept us from seeing them on TOS?

Oh, but it sort of implies that Spock is the only non-human in a real leadership position, too. I mean you have a sound theory sure, but it suggests a system where it's easier for humans to advance. Heck, how many non-alien cannon fodder red shirts have we seen?

But I'm not advocating for affirmative action in space. After all, it *is* about budget

A good point.

Perhaps then we should go back to the idea that most ships are generally homogenous for logistical ease, and that post-refit the ship was a special case. Hell, perhaps many of the crew members we saw aboard in the rec deck were pulled from various ships to serve during the Vejur crisis?

 

[Cyke101]

You know, I can't help but wonder if the original Enterprise was actually teeming with alien crew members somewhere below decks? Probably not Vulcans (since there were a couple of plot points that required Spock to be the only Vulcan aboard here and there) but maybe Andorians, Tellarites, Caitians, and whatnot (more akin to the polyglot group we saw on the rec deck in TMP) and it was only budgetary limitations that kept us from seeing them on TOS?

Oh, but it sort of implies that Spock is the only non-human in a real leadership position, too. I mean you have a sound theory sure, but it suggests a system where it's easier for humans to advance. Heck, how many non-alien cannon fodder red shirts have we seen?

But I'm not advocating for affirmative action in space. After all, it *is* about budget

A good point.

Perhaps then we should go back to the idea that most ships are generally homogenous for logistical ease, and that post-refit the ship was a special case. Hell, perhaps many of the crew members we saw aboard in the rec deck were pulled from various ships to serve during the Vejur crisis?

I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that's within the realm of possibility. When Star Trek II rolled out, the only non-humans we do see on the Enterprise were Saavik and Spock. Maybe the other non-humans returned to their other posts after the crisis. Maybe Vulcans are the new model minority...

 

[Praetor]

Well, Spock does seem to be a 'special' case either way. He's half-human despite all his protestations, and his apparent fame as a 'living legend' among Vulcans ('Amok Time') may have inspired other Vulcans to seek assignment on Earth vessels - perhaps in search of similar fame? Saavik and Valeris might have been following the Spock model, then.

Indeed, perhaps Spock set the trend for general de-homogenization aboard Starfleet ships, even if we still have all-Vulcan ones in the 2370s ('Take Me Out to the Holosuite.')

 

[Jaespol]

1) Holograms: So, Data and the other Soong-class androids are unique in the galaxy because only Dr. Soong was enough of a genius to be able to design a positronic brain and all other attempts end in catastrophic failure and death. But somehow holograms have no problems with independent thought and action. A "robot" is impossible to build but computer controlled force fields and light projections pose no problem. The whole reason Professor Moriarty was so cool in "Elementary Dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle" was because of the uniqueness of his sentience and the number of unlikely events necessary for him to come into being and be truly sentient. But then all of a sudden every moron with a Windows PC can create sentient holograms that are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from biological life (Vic Fontaine, EMH, that annoying janitor in "Revulsion"). I love Holodeck episodes but holograms should have stayed in the Holodeck as "puppets" rather than people walking around and interacting with everyone. Also, you cannot tell me that the most cost effective way to mine rocks in an asteroid is to install a bunch of forcefield projectors (enough to cover any angle in the mine) which have to be integrated into a super complex computer which has to be able to generate enough computing power to coordinate the actions of dozens of independent characters and which has to run all the subroutines which enable them to think and act independently.

Totally agree. The EMH thing went way too far imo