Trek's lowest moment

[TOSalltheway]

Uhuras fan dance in V

Code of Honor

Any time any female crew members says any version of the phrase "I'm frightened".

Enemy Within comments about how the rapist evil Kirk had some "interesting qualities"

 

[HIjol]

After reading this entire Thread, it occurs to me that the ''..lowest moment..."
will be the moment we and others all stop writing, arguing, caring and Herberting about this thing that we all clearly love and have such passion for.

But, somehow, I think that day will never come!

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Picard was different, because after the Borg cube was destroyed he was immediately cut off and returned to his individual existence (and even before that, had shown evidence that he was able to do so, with his 'Sleep, Data' comment). If Picard had somehow continued to be 'Locutus', they may well have had to kill him.

As for Remmick? Killing him was self-defense, and that is an absolute right.

Besides, it seemed clear that there was something much more than a simple parasite controlling him - Picard and Riker could see Remmick's neck bulging and all the other parasites returning to him. So it was obvious that Remmick was somehow controlling them all.

Uh huh. And Picard had had his skin turned ash grey had mechanical implants everywhere and talked as if his brain had been completely destroyed of it's humanity and he was under the total control of the enemy. But those weren't conclusive enough evidence that he was beyond saving at first glance???? Hell even when they got him back aboard the Enterprise he was talking to Worf, Data and the everyone else about how'd they all be wiped out by the Borg and then he even started trying to short out the controls and attcked a crewmen before Data snapped his Borg hand off. Oh yeah he was also in involved and in destroying a whole fleet of starships.

He showed absolutely NO sign of being Picard until the very end. He displayed every indication of being totally lost and there were multiply opportunities to kill him. Yet he was always given the benefit of the doubt he could be saved.

Remick swallowed a bug, his neck bulged some and he spoke, ala Picard in an menacing voice vowing destruction and THAT was absolutely conclusive he was beyond help????

It wasn't even self defense. He was sitting at a desk 20 feet away making no moves to when they opened fire.

Riker and Picard didn't know shit for sure when they blew his head off. They assumed he was beyond saving, blew his head off and were "Boy good thing we were right. What if it been some small parasite or implant that could have been removed. That would have been awkward. Good job, lets go get a beer."

Regardless of the scene itself. The blowing off of the head and creature emerging was way too graphic. If they were going to kill him just vaporize him. Gore like that is for films like Alien. Not a ST TELEVISION show.

And apparently the United Kingdom agreed as they censored that scene out. And the UK is generally much more lenient about sex and violence on popular TV shows. Or at least they were at the time.

It was a horrible scene, stop trying to justify it. Seems you have a pretty fast and loose set of criteria for deciding what characters are still salvageable after enemy takeovers and which ones get to die gruesome deaths.

 

[at Quark's]

He showed absolutely NO sign of being Picard until the very end.

We, as viewers, saw his tear, so we knew he perhaps wasn't totally lost. But of course the crew didn't see that.

As Locutus he said to Riker: "your resistance is hopeless... number one", which might have been construed by the crew as a sign Picard was still inside in some way. But I'll admit it's a long shot.

 

[Trekkin]

The UK also censored the Ep where Data mentioned the IRA in a favourable light. Bringing up the censors doesn't really prove that you're right, just that everyone has their own standards. If some other guy had happened to review the Ep that day, it may have gotten through uncut. I doubt anyone tried to appeal that decision, so we don't know. They certainly used to mangle Buffy pretty indiscriminately. Things that were okay one week would have something similar cut in the next.

I watched that episode as a kid. The only thing that 'disturbed' me about that ep was that I thought the first part was boring (what the hell does a 10 year old care about a lot of talking and exploding ships we never see?), and even then I thought the bug puppet looked fake. TWOK scared me more, with the eels, vaporisations of screaming victims, hanging bodies flopping out of no where with slit throats, Preston and Spocks burns etc.

Though weirdly, it was the last few shots of Khan that always got me the most- that close up of his crazy expression, his melting face, and his mangled arm and leg as he first pulls himself off the ground. Nowadays it actually makes me feel a teensy bit sorry for him (in the Shakespearean tradgedy sort of way), but back then it was horrifying.

Oh, and there was also the Vidian's Leatherfacing their victims in VOY, and the time travelling sequence in IV. I couldn't tell you why for the last one, but little me would always close my eyes for that bit.

So yeah...it's just your personal opinion dude. Not much use trying to 'prove' to others that they should see it the same way or anything.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

2. I know that this will draw some reaction, but finding out that Gene Roddenberry was a horribly flawed human being (drugs, infidelity, ethics, etc) really tainted my belief in the franchise as "his vision." I look to contributors like Coon, Justman, Fontana, Nimoy and Bennett now as actually being more critical to the direction of the franchise than Roddenberry.

No offense, but that isn't really a low moment for Trek. Rather, that's just a low moment for you personally. Roddenberry's behavior never actually affected the show.

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack. That was the icing on the cake that UPN and B&B were pandering to the lowest common denominator of viewer.

I disagree ENTIRELY. His abandoning TOS in the 3rd season certainly had implications to the quality of the scripts and to the future departures of Justman and Fontana. His ethics were always in question by the higher-ups given his affinity for casting women he was sleeping with (Nichols, Barrett) which, among other things, did not help him politically where he needed some capital.

It also caused / allowed most of what sucked in the first two seasons of TNG. It alienated good people like Fontana and David Gerrold.

His behavior as Producer / Writer on Star Trek- The Motion Picture almost ended the franchise and alienated several key players, including Nimoy. It also resulted in his permanent exile from the movie franchise.



Don't get me wrong. I'm eternally greatful for the gift he has given us all, God rest his soul...but that's why the truth about the man he was is, indeed, a low-point.

T'Pol's buttcrack, indeed.

Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek was Brett Favre and the Packers in reverse.

Farve was seen by many as not just the starting QB for GB, but, thanks to help by idiotic sycophants like John a Madden who wet his pants every time Favre did anything, as the living, breathing embodiment of the Packers, he symbolized their tradition, their spirit, the fans passion......etc. He clearly loved the team, bled green and yellow and he probably slept on a bed made from Lambeau Field turf and had life sized statues of Vince Lombardi, Bart Start, and Ray Nitzke in his house that he paid tribute to every night in a two hour ceremony.

He also was the embodiment of the Green Bay fan. He was tough and gritty, he played hard, he played hurt, he played well in the cold, he didn't miss a game, every time he took a vicious hit (which he took a lot of because he tended to release the ball late in the play a lot) he shook it off and was ready for the next snap. He never quit and when the chips were down he often made the big play. Even when he threw a stupid pick at a critical juncture (which he did a lot) it was still ok because he was the "Ol Gunslinger" who was just doing what he did naturally. He was literally EVERYTHING about the Packers and their fans. The only difference between him and joe Packet fan was he made hundreds of millions.

Turns out he was all these things as long as the Packers catered to his every whim. When he started this retiring/unretiring thing so he could skip training camp and GB said stop jerking us around like this....well he started being a un Packer like diva. And when the team had the gall to say, you want to unretire, fine, come to camp and beat Aaron Rodgers for the job....Well....How dare the Packers think a guy 37 years old might be at the end of the line and the franchise needed to look to the future. He was Brett Favre damnit. It didn't matter if he was declining or Aaron Rodgers looked like a stud. He should get to do whatever he wanted for as long as he wanted based on his past.

We know the rest. Mr Packer got traded, had three more seasons where he mostly spent his time trying to stick it to GB, when he wasn't busy texting pictures of his penis to Jenn Sterger, and he ended his career, appropriately enough, throwing a stupid pick to send the Saints to the Super Bowl.

Meanwhile Aaron Rodgers had won a Super Bowl (same number Favre did in 20 seasons) is the current MVP and, barring injury, probably has several seasons of high level football left and will probably be in the HOF.

Roddenberry was the reverse. I don't care the guy was an ass IRL but, when ST was some low rated and low budget show, he was just a guy in Hollywood trying to make his project popular to make money and power. When the show was clearly going to end after season three he had no problem bailing and going to another project he hoped would be his big break. Yeah he worked hard at it for a while, but there was none of this it being "his vision" and him representing all that was good and sacred about ST. It was a show he tried, it failed and he moved on as soon as he could.

It was only when ST experienced an unprecedented return from the dead and became a phenomenon that had major financial possibilities that Gene went "HOLY SHIT. THIS THING IS HUGE" and he and others created this image of him as the supreme protector of ST and how much of his heart and soul he put into this "vision of the future and humanity." All so he came off as done indispensable element of ST so he could profit from any future success it might have.

Even though the order of events were reversed, Favre and Roddenberry were one and the same. As long as their "great loves" in GB and ST were making them rich and meeting all their other demands they were the unimpeachable symbol of those things. When those things weren't doing what the men wanted they had ZERO problem cutting bait and running to something else they hoped would. Great love of their life be damned.

The images these men created were every bit as fictional as anything that happened in ST.

 

[Autistoid]

The massive difference is that TRoi from the beginning was developed as a sexual person.

7of9, and T'Pol were not ever remotely sexual characters nor was there a need for them to be.

What gives you that impression?

Troi never, ever, struck me as being treated a sexual person, at least from the audience perspective. From an in character perspective, it is difficult to judge because she really is not show in relationships that are not dysfunctional or broken up in some way. Her and Riker are estranged at first, and then she has the marriage with Wyatt in Haven. Then she becomes essentially the emotional abuse victim in another episode. And then there is the on again, off again thing with Worf.

In any case, regardless of what the characters were meant to be, T'Pol and 7 of 9 were certainly designed to appeal to the sexual attractions of the audience.

Your completely missing the point.

Your right to say troi was never suppose to be an obvious sex kitten, but that is exactly the point I was making.

Imagine the three were real people.

Troi was a very social person who pursued pleasurable experiences. She loves chocolate, she related to many people on emotional levels. She came from an upbringing where being naked was normal. She was a counselor it made perfect sense that in her role she would just to wear more expressive clothing.

Seven and tpol, were emotionally unavailable and would never of wore a catsuit if they understood the realities of wearing that type of clothing.

This completely ignoring the fundamentals of such characters is what made the decisions so incredibly stupid and a total low point for the show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Seven and tpol, were emotionally unavailable and would never of wore a catsuit if they understood the realities of wearing that type of clothing.

Why should either one care about the "realities of wearing that type of clothing"? Vulcans don't care about human body taboos. Neither do the Borg.

 

[Autistoid]

Seven and tpol, were emotionally unavailable and would never of wore a catsuit if they understood the realities of wearing that type of clothing.

Why should either one care about the "realities of wearing that type of clothing"? Vulcans don't care about humans body taboos. Neither do the Borg.

Yeah why don't they just walk around naked.

It's logical to avoid situations that are undesirable.

Taboo or not that clothing clearly attracts unwanted attention.

And if your gonna spout some higher evolved future folk than why the hell would they bother with uniforms in the first place.

Anyways.

I'm not getting into this. We all know it's a tacky move made by producers.

They could get away with it with troi because it made sense.

It's just simply dumb, and hurt the credibility of the series.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

G

The UK also censored the Ep where Data mentioned the IRA in a favourable light. Bringing up the censors doesn't really prove that you're right, just that everyone has their own standards. If some other guy had happened to review the Ep that day, it may have gotten through uncut. I doubt anyone tried to appeal that decision, so we don't know. They certainly used to mangle Buffy pretty indiscriminately. Things that were okay one week would have something similar cut in the next.

I watched that episode as a kid. The only thing that 'disturbed' me about that ep was that I thought the first part was boring (what the hell does a 10 year old care about a lot of talking and exploding ships we never see?), and even then I thought the bug puppet looked fake. TWOK scared me more, with the eels, vaporisations of screaming victims, hanging bodies flopping out of no where with slit throats, Preston and Spocks burns etc.

Though weirdly, it was the last few shots of Khan that always got me the most- that close up of his crazy expression, his melting face, and his mangled arm and leg as he first pulls himself off the ground. Nowadays it actually makes me feel a teensy bit sorry for him (in the Shakespearean tradgedy sort of way), but back then it was horrifying.

Oh, and there was also the Vidian's Leatherfacing their victims in VOY, and the time travelling sequence in IV. I couldn't tell you why for the last one, but little me would always close my eyes for that bit.

So yeah...it's just your personal opinion dude. Not much use trying to 'prove' to others that they should see it the same way or anything.

TWOK was a film. TNG a show. Even though that line has blurred considerably in recent years, back then it was understood TV was less graphic than films. That's why even some PG films had swearing, nudity and realistic violence. Whereas even the most adult shows on regular TV didn't. Even shows that pushed it a little were shown at ten or later. That's why films were rated and TV wasn't.

As for the violence in TWOK. I hate to point out that Khan was the insane villain and it was expected he'd do brutal and violent things like the eels and killing Regula I crew. Even his own mutilated face at the was a result of his own insanity and consequence from engaging the Enterprise to fulfill his desire for revenge.

I don't know about the VOY thing you're talking to cuz I cut bait after a season.

Picard and Riker were starfleet officers who supposedly used force as a last resort. In keeping with that theme just MAYBE they should have used a little restraint in making sure a fellow starfleet officer, who was just sitting there, was beyond any hope before just cutting loose.

Again good for thing the rules didn't apply to Picard the when for most of the episode it seemed he was lost. If they'd treated him like Remick Worf would have decapitated him with a Bathleth first time he saw Locutus.

 

[at Quark's]

Why should either one care about the "realities of wearing that type of clothing"? Vulcans don't care about human body taboos. Neither do the Borg.

No, perhaps not. But, given how Vulcans are generally portrayed, they might adapt their clothing when around humans, 'such as to not needlessly elicit sexual responses from your male crew members'.

The Borg wouldn't care about that, only about whether the clothing was "efficient" for its purpose.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Seven and tpol, were emotionally unavailable and would never of wore a catsuit if they understood the realities of wearing that type of clothing.

What realities?

Oh, and just with respect to Seven, she was hardly emotionally unavailable, whatever that means. A major part of her arc involved having Borg tech removed from her that had prevented her from expressing her emotions, as well as learning how to express her emotions, including the romantic feelings she had for the man of her choice.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

He showed absolutely NO sign of being Picard until the very end.

We, as viewers, saw his tear, so we knew he perhaps wasn't totally lost. But of course the crew didn't see that.

As Locutus he said to Riker: "your resistance is hopeless... number one", which might have been construed by the crew as a sign Picard was still inside in some way. But I'll admit it's a long shot.

Like you said the year scene was a clue to the viewer that Picard was still alive. The crew had no idea.

As for the number one comment I'll grant it could be seen in the way you say. To me though it was an ominous and mocking comment directed towards Riker basically saying "I know everything you do....SURPRISE!!!!" And throwing number one at the end was a way of ramming the point home that all of Riker's current knowledge and plans were useless.

I didn't see it as a sign of hope. But you make a interesting point though.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Why do you think Jar Jar Binks was in the last two prequels, however briefly, after he'd become arguably the most unpopular character in major motion picture history? It was Lucas' way of saying "Fuck you for not embracing him, he's going to appear anyway." You really can't show contempt for your audience any more than that.

I mean no disrespect, but:
Actually, I think it's a nice, strong statement to the fans, letting them know that fans have absolutely no place in the creative process. And it would be a righteous statement.

See, it all falls back on that b.s. mentality that somehow fans seem to think that they own something that they had no creative input on in the first place. That undeserved sense of self-entitlement.

Yeah, if I thought someone could dictate how I wrote my stories, I'd probably hold that someone in contempt too.

You have to be careful with that argument though. So many of the creative decisions in the prequels had marketing to the younger audience in mind rather than creative quality. So if the fans truly had no place in the creative process, the movie would have been very different.

And Jar Jar Binks was meant to have a much larger role in the last two films, so they did cave into fan demands. Art does not exist in a vacuum, and it's up to the artist which feedback to respond to and which to ignore.

I know it's fun to throw out the word entitlement to cast people who disagree with you as whiners without actually responding to their argument, but it does not apply in this particular case. You can't create decades of marketing hype in order to extract billions of dollars from the fans then complain when the fans feel you did not live up to the expectations you created.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Seven and tpol, were emotionally unavailable and would never of wore a catsuit if they understood the realities of wearing that type of clothing.

Why should either one care about the "realities of wearing that type of clothing"? Vulcans don't care about humans body taboos. Neither do the Borg.

Yeah why don't they just walk around naked.

Because they are in jobs/environments that require uniforms.

It's logical to avoid situations that are undesirable.

That's not logic, that's fear.

Taboo or not that clothing clearly attracts unwanted attention.

So?

And if your gonna spout some higher evolved future folk than why the hell would they bother with uniforms in the first place.

I'm not.

Anyways.

I'm not getting into this. We all know it's a tacky move made by producers.

They could get away with it with troi because it made sense.

It's just simply dumb, and hurt the credibility of the series.

If you can't defend your position, then don't bring it up.

Tacky? No, it's SOP for Star Trek from TOS to the modern day. Star Trek's "credibility" was never resting on the costume choices for it's female characters.

 

[Vger23]

For me, Trek's lowest moment was when we saw T'Pol's buttcrack.

How was that much different that Deanna opening the door to her quarters wear a shear white top where you could see her areolas?

The massive difference is that TRoi from the beginning was developed as a sexual person.

7of9, and T'Pol were not ever remotely sexual characters nor was there a need for them to be.

Troi could of literally walked around set naked and it would of fit her character.

This is why voyager and ENT were just inherently dumb shows. They copied a formula and never understood why it was such bad work.


Anyway one of the most dissapointing momments in my early teens was watching the first episode of Enterprise.

Hearing that god awful theme song was one of the most confusing momments of my life.

I'm not sure what to think about the fact that one of your most disappointing and confusing moments of your life was watching a television show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why should either one care about the "realities of wearing that type of clothing"? Vulcans don't care about human body taboos. Neither do the Borg.

No, perhaps not. But, given how Vulcans are generally portrayed, they might adapt their clothing when around humans, 'such as to not needlessly elicit sexual responses from your male crew members'.

The Borg wouldn't care about that, only about whether the clothing was "efficient" for its purpose.

Vulcans seem to wear what they want. Including form fitting clothing and shear robes.

 

[Vger23]

The massive difference is that TRoi from the beginning was developed as a sexual person.

7of9, and T'Pol were not ever remotely sexual characters nor was there a need for them to be.

What gives you that impression?

I'm going to have to echo this question-T'Pol always struck me as being the love interest of Archer (Hoshie was never played that way) and the cat suit certainly did not help in dissuading me of that opinion.

7 of 9, I will admit a bias, as my introduction to her was by a friend of mine who thought she was the hottest woman in the world. Again, the cat suit does not help matters, in my opinion, especially when the rest of the crew are dressed in non-form fitting uniforms.

Troi never, ever, struck me as being treated a sexual person, at least from the audience perspective. From an in character perspective, it is difficult to judge because she really is not show in relationships that are not dysfunctional or broken up in some way. Her and Riker are estranged at first, and then she has the marriage with Wyatt in Haven. Then she becomes essentially the emotional abuse victim in another episode. And then there is the on again, off again thing with Worf.

That's a brief list but I never saw her as looking for a sexual relationship in the way that Riker was portrayed (see "Angel One" for the more grievous entry in that list, followed by "The Game.").

In any case, regardless of what the characters were meant to be, T'Pol and 7 of 9 were certainly designed to appeal to the sexual attractions of the audience.

I have to admit, I always thought Deanna was the most sexual/sensual character in Star Trek. T'Pol and 7 were hot, but without any sex appeal below their surface appearance.

Tori just oozed it.

 

[at Quark's]

Vulcans seem to wear what they want. Including form fitting clothing and shear robes.

I don't disagree with that. Just saying that it would not be irreconcilable with known Vulcan behavior to make a 'sensible' choice in their clothing when working in an environment with a lot of young (human) male crewmembers.

None of the three pictures you post involve such a situation.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Vulcans seem to wear what they want. Including form fitting clothing and shear robes.

I don't disagree with that. Just saying that it would not be irreconcilable with known Vulcan behavior to make a 'sensible' choice in their clothing when working in an environment with a lot of young (human) male crewmembers.

None of the three pictures you post involve such a situation.

The Federation contains many species. Human males need to adapt.