TOS Purists of TrekBBS - Unite!

[Captain Robert April]

With regard to the ship, let me put it this way: If one were to build a ship of that size on the ground, with the capability of lifting off under its own power and maintain its structural integrity while under full Earth normal gravity, one would not design a ship that looked anything like the Enterprise.

 

[Warped9]

The fact that I and others of like mind don't like and/or accept most other Trek besides TOS burns their ass to no end because they take it as a personal affront. Too bad for them. And they like to categorize us with neat like tags: oh, they don't like anything new, they're haters, they're sad and narrow minded. What a load of horse shit. They don't really know us, but like to think they do.

Do you like all versions of Batman or Superman or Sherlock Holmes or 007? Do you have to? Of course not. They call us sad, but they're the ones with their shorts in a knot.

 

[Dukhat]

The fact that I and others of like mind don't like and/or accept most other Trek besides TOS burns their ass to no end because they take it as a personal affront. Too bad for them. And they like to categorize us with neat like tags: oh, they don't like anything new, they're haters, they're sad and narrow minded. What a load of horse shit. They don't really know us, but like to think they do.

Do you like all versions of Batman or Superman or Sherlock Holmes or 007? Do you have to? Of course not. They call us sad, but they're the ones with their shorts in a knot.

 

[Shatnertage]

What I find hard to understand is the whole idea of "purity," that Trek before 1970 is ipso facto superior to anything after then, a position that I haven't heard anyone involved with the actual production of the show suggest; in fact, most of them in one way or another worked on Trek projects after 1970.

In other words, what would you say if you were in an elevator with Leonard Nimoy and he asked you what you thought of the new movie?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'd say, "With all due respect, I despise that film with every fiber of my being, for reasons I'm quite sure you don't have the time or inclination of listen to in this short span of time. However, if you'd like to discuss this further when you get home, here's my email address."

 

[Warped9]

I'd say, "With all due respect, I despise that film with every fiber of my being, for reasons I'm quite sure you don't have the time or inclination of listen to in this short span of time. However, if you'd like to discuss this further when you get home, here's my email address."

Agreed.

I don't even consider myself a purist but I suppose it depends on one's definition. Do I consider TOS superior to what came later? Yes, in many respects. And so what? It's my opinion.

 

[T'Bonz]

My first ever post on these boards: I just discovered them from reading the comments in the Star Trek reviews on the Onion AVClub. I consider myself a complete TOS purist. I have no use whatever for any of the later series with other characters.

However, I'll throw some animated series stuff in, too. I'll happily take Yesteryear as canon, and I think there were some other decent episodes. Also the John M Ford tie-in novel The Final Reflection (1984) ought to be canonical (it's too good to leave out).

Greetings, all.

Welcome.

Yesteryear was an excellent show, but I wish they could change two things about it: the music (I don't like the Animated Series music) and have a different kid voice young Spock. The one who did made Spock seem whiny.

Did you like TMP?

 

[Lieut. Arex]

But V can't be mistaken for VI. The isotopic ratios of the elements making up the planets would be different. This is how we distinguish the sources of meteorites falling on Earth, determining ALH 84001 was from Mars, for example. Beach's scans wouldn't have ID'd the planet as Ceti Alpha VI, they would have ID'd a wrecked CA-V in the wrong place.

Assuming they did a detailed enough scan. They weren't doing comprehensive mineralogical scans. They were scanning for life forms.

Also, while the scenario you suggest might happen, it wouldn't in a fifteen year time frame. It would take thousands of years for the orbit to circularize. That's too many astrophysical hoops for me to jump through. I understand dramatically why the plot was structured as it was, using a principle character to introduce and explain the major threat to the audience, but it's clumsy and scientifically implausible. It's another example of the incompetent Starfleet shown through all the films.

No, it isn't. For all we know, V and VI were very similar planets in terms of composition. Reliant found a lifeless (they thought) planet in approximately the right orbit that grossly matched what they had recorded for composition. They had no reason to scan for trace elements. They saw a planet in roughly the right place and went on with their mission to check for life forms.


You know, I just realized something. If V and VI had effectively "switched" orbital positions in terms relationship to the primary, that would explain why Checkov never said anything to Terrell about Khan to begin with. For all he knew, Khan died with Ceti Alpha V. It wasn't until he saw the belt buckle that he realized he'd made a terrible mistake.

The two planets masses and diameters would be different. Their densities would be different. The Ceti Alpha V settled into would be different from Ceti Alpha VI's original one. Earth and Venus are in many respects twin worlds. If Venus exploded and Earth shifted into its orbit, it could not be mistaken for Venus. Stripped of their atmospheres and swapped, Reliant would easily distinguish one from the other with ease. It should have been the same with Ceti Alpha V and VI.

There is no conceivable way a starship doing even the most cursory scan could mistake one planet for another.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The planets orbits would be not expected to change that radially in only a few decades, if VI exploded and the debris stayed in the same orbit as a ring or arcs.

Apparently they did. Reliant went to the 6th orbit, as evidenced by the belief that it was CEVI.

According to Kirk's statement "a man I haven't seen for fifteen years" then any children of Khan's followers couldn't be more than fifteen years old. The followers in TWOK looked older than fifteen. And even if some of the supermen had been in their late teens to early twenties when they were marooned then they'd still be full adults fifteen years later.

Accellerated physical development. It's happening in real life more and more with all the hormones and stuff we're putting into our foodstuffs. Only for the "supermen" it would be genetically encoded.

 

[Red Ranger]

I say again: Demented and sad.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The Grissom's goal was to find a planet suitable for the Genesis Project by eliminating planets from consideration that had life present on them. Life is going to be present (or absent) due to several overlapping factors including the geology, chemistry, and climatology of a planet- they wouldn't only be scanning for something as obvious as DNA or something with a pulse, etc.

Yes they would. Geoloical conditions were not what they were there for. Federation starships have sensors that pick up life forms independently of such cues in any event.

A scientific survey searching for for life would need to include the investigation of these other non-biological factors that would have an influence on the potential presence of life--- otherwise this ship's scientists would be as bad at their jobs as all the other non-Enterprise members of Starfleet that we've seen in the movies.

Not for their purposes. They weren't there to catalog potential life. All they needed was a yes/no answer, is there animate life? If so, the planet is off the candidate list.

The two planets masses and diameters would be different.

Who says? And just how easy is it to tell the total mass and diameter of the original planet from a collection of rubble and gas?

Their densities would be different.

Again, who says?

The Ceti Alpha V settled into would be different from Ceti Alpha VI's original one.

assuming you left out the word "orbit" I answer this with the following:

"Captain, we have entered the system. There is a problem with the fifth and sixth planets. Our scans do not match what is recorded on our charts."

"Short-range sensor scan."

"Captain, it would appear that Ceti Alpha V has undergone a violently explosive breakup. The resulting gravitational disturbances appear to have affected the orbit of Ceti Alpha VI."

"Well, we aren't here to map planetary orbits. Preliminary scan of Ceti Alpha VI?"

"Sensors record no obvious signs of life. Still too far out for conclusive readings."

"Very well. Helm, standard orbit around Ceti Alpha VI."

"Aye sir..."

Earth and Venus are in many respects twin worlds. If Venus exploded and Earth shifted into its orbit, it could not be mistaken for Venus. Stripped of their atmospheres and swapped, Reliant would easily distinguish one from the other with ease. It should have been the same with Ceti Alpha V and VI.

There is no conceivable way a starship doing even the most cursory scan could mistake one planet for another.

Yet they did, which you ascribe to incompetence on their part. The only other people I know who use the "incompetent officer" tactic are the rabid Warsies who use it to try to make Trek look bad vs Star Wars but are confounded by dialogue evidence to the contrary.

 

[Red Ranger]

Oh, excuse me. You might have mistaken me with someone who gave a shit.

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!

He'll continue to protest, even if they find a way to build a time machine that alters the past so GR gets to make a fourth season!!

I'll add the following: I don't accept or like every little thing in the post-TOS ST mythos. I have plenty of problems with some of the series and individual shows. And I do consider TOS not only the first but the best. However, there are a number of TOS shows that are also ridiculous -- Spock's Brain, anybody? There are several eps of the other, newer shows superior to that piece of tripe. Two immediately spring to mind: TNG's The Inner Light, and DSN's In The Pale Moonlight, just to name two stellar eps. And purists -- 20 years from now, there'll be yet another reboot of ST, with new, younger actors, with cameos from the current torch-bearers. It is what it is!

 

[Captain Robert April]

"Captain, we have entered the system. There is a problem with the fifth and sixth planets. Our scans do not match what is recorded on our charts."

"Short-range sensor scan."

"Captain, it would appear that Ceti Alpha V has undergone a violently explosive breakup. The resulting gravitational disturbances appear to have affected the orbit of Ceti Alpha VI."

"Well, we aren't here to map planetary orbits. Preliminary scan of Ceti Alpha VI?"

"Sensors record no obvious signs of life. Still too far out for conclusive readings."

"Very well. Helm, standard orbit around Ceti Alpha VI."

"Aye sir..."

 

[Joker]

I don't even consider myself a purist...

I don't think you could take Star Trek (or your inflated opinion of its significance) any more seriously if it were found to be a missing chapter of the Bible.

I mean, come on... a year on, and you're still reminding us daily that you despise "every stinking frame" of the new movie. Even the people who like it have largely moved on from it, yet you're still having gag reflex reactions to its mere mention. Your signature still waffles about the franchise apparently ending in 1979. This is 2010.

You're posting from Care-too-much, Puristville. Build a bridge and get over it. Move on, y'know?

 

[Mr Darcy]

I say again: Demented and sad.

For not liking a few TV series?


I was not aware that a fan of TOS was required to like the other incarnations as well. It is perfectly acceptable to be fond of one particular series rather than of the entire franchise. I personally fit in the latter category, yet there is nothing preventing anyone from saying: "Star Trek: Enterprise is the one and only Star Trek. All other series are utter %~^*§!"

Perhaps the term "purist" was chosen unwisely. Though I do not really see the problem here either.

TOS purist = A person, who only likes TOS. The End.

Now, if a "purist" would want to rid the world of all "pretenders" in "The great TOS purity purge", I would probably recommend that person for therapy - but so far I have not read no such thing.



Ultimately: Neither TOS nor the other Star Trek incarnations are nearly important enough to get into these kind of fights. It is just a TV series.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't even consider myself a purist...

I don't think you could take Star Trek (or your inflated opinion of its significance) any more seriously if it were found to be a missing chapter of the Bible.

I mean, come on... a year on, and you're still reminding us daily that you despise "every stinking frame" of the new movie. Even the people who like it have largely moved on from it, yet you're still having gag reflex reactions to its mere mention. Your signature still waffles about the franchise apparently ending in 1979. This is 2010.

You're posting from Care-too-much, Puristville. Build a bridge and get over it. Move on, y'know?

Here's how I feel: If someone wants to call themselves a TOS purist and recognize only the original series, they're perfectly within their right to do so. Makes no nevermind to me. But that belief is not going to stop other future Trek TV series and movies from being made. And if all these self-styled TOS purists are going to do is constantly complain about every new incarnation of Trek that doesn't fit into their personal views, then they're going to be complaining for a long time. And again, since that complaining isn't going to stop anything, then one wonders why, after a certain point, the complainers don't just give up and stop complaining. But that's just me. I've always felt that nuTrek is better than noTrek. (But admittedly I didn't feel that way about ENTERPRISE...)

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Lieut. Arex wrote:
The two planets masses and diameters would be different.

Who says? And just how easy is it to tell the total mass and diameter of the original planet from a collection of rubble and gas?

Pretty easy. Assuming whatever magic happened to make a planet explode, most of the material would remain fairly close together due to gravity.

Their densities would be different.

Again, who says?

As I stated, different planets have differing ratios of elements in their makeup. That affects their densities. It's an extremely simple concept to follow. Venus, Earth, and Mars, all very similar planets, have different mean densities. Ceti Alpha V and VI would as well.

The (orbit) Ceti Alpha V settled into would be different from Ceti Alpha VI's original one.

assuming you left out the word "orbit" I answer this with the following:

"Captain, we have entered the system. There is a problem with the fifth and sixth planets. Our scans do not match what is recorded on our charts."

"Short-range sensor scan."

"Captain, it would appear that Ceti Alpha V has undergone a violently explosive breakup. The resulting gravitational disturbances appear to have affected the orbit of Ceti Alpha VI."

"Well, we aren't here to map planetary orbits. Preliminary scan of Ceti Alpha VI?"

"Sensors record no obvious signs of life. Still too far out for conclusive readings."

"Very well. Helm, standard orbit around Ceti Alpha VI."

"Aye sir..."

(Yes, I left out orbit. Went to sleep in the chair writing that post. How exciting!) None of your fanfic is in the film and did not plausibly happen before we see Reliant because anything unusual would have triggered a further investigation. Such a delay and investigation would have complicated and slowed the plot, so it is ignored.

Earth and Venus are in many respects twin worlds. If Venus exploded and Earth shifted into its orbit, it could not be mistaken for Venus. Stripped of their atmospheres and swapped, Reliant would easily distinguish one from the other with ease. It should have been the same with Ceti Alpha V and VI.

There is no conceivable way a starship doing even the most cursory scan could mistake one planet for another.

Yet they did, which you ascribe to incompetence on their part. The only other people I know who use the "incompetent officer" tactic are the rabid Warsies who use it to try to make Trek look bad vs Star Wars but are confounded by dialogue evidence to the contrary.

The incompetence, or more charitably, lack of skill, lies with the screenwriters. They chose a method of introducing Khan which required someone to act like an idiot. Another method could have been used, but it would have likely involved characters the audience has no investment in and added time to the script and money to the budget. Using Chekov on the Reliant puts a familiar character in jeopardy early as well as providing an easy vehicle for the exposition needed to bring the uninformed in the audience up to speed about who and what Khan is and wants. It is the very definition of "idiot plot". At least the character is not abused here as badly as he is in TUC. That movie makes Chekov an idiot at every turn.

TWoK is a fun movie, without question the most enjoyable of the entire series, but why anyone would pick this plot point as the hill they want to die on, I have no idea. Anyone with any basic knowledge of planetary science can see it is broken beyond all repair.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Pretty easy. Assuming whatever magic happened to make a planet explode, most of the material would remain fairly close together due to gravity.

That being a relative term. And again, they had no interest in Ceti Alpha V, just VI. There was no reason for them to do a mass analysis on the debris, as it was not their reason for being there.

As I stated, different planets have differing ratios of elements in their makeup. That affects their densities. It's an extremely simple concept to follow. Venus, Earth, and Mars, all very similar planets, have different mean densities. Ceti Alpha V and VI would as well.

You ASSUME. There is no evidence one way or the other.

(Yes, I left out orbit. Went to sleep in the chair writing that post. How exciting!)

Done that a time or two...

None of your fanfic is in the film

It's called an explanation. Yes, it's not in the film, but it's a plausable explanation for the events we DID see.

and did not plausibly happen before we see Reliant because anything unusual would have triggered a further investigation.

No, it wouldn't. There was no reason. Their mission was to scan CEVI for life forms, NOT map planetary debris or recalculate orbits.

Such a delay and investigation would have complicated and slowed the plot, so it is ignored.

Doing so was not part of their mission assignment. They were NOT on a general survey mission; they had a specific job to do, and, again, it was NOT to map planetary rubble or speculate about orbits. It was to ascertain whether or not there was animate life on CE VI. Nothing more.

TWoK is a fun movie, without question the most enjoyable of the entire series, but why anyone would pick this plot point as the hill they want to die on, I have no idea. Anyone with any basic knowledge of planetary science can see it is broken beyond all repair.

In your opinion, one colored by your bias against the film.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

TWoK is a fun movie, without question the most enjoyable of the entire series, but why anyone would pick this plot point as the hill they want to die on, I have no idea. Anyone with any basic knowledge of planetary science can see it is broken beyond all repair.

In your opinion, one colored by your bias against the film.

We're done here. Your obvious lack of both anything resembling even a nodding acquaintance with the simplest astrophysical concepts and reading comprehension, interpreting calling a film "fun" and "most enjoyable of the series", as bias against it has at agonizingly long last demonstrated the ultimate futility of continuing this egregiously off-topic debate.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Whatever...