Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

[Gagarin]

Given the technology updates we see in TMP, maybe the Enterprise WAS a garbage scow.. or should be hauled away as garbage, as per the Klingon's comments.

 

[xortex]

I'm fond of the DS9 term for money - izzics.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Using the analysis on this website

DE:

Cool article. I think they did a great job at explaining the economics of the Federation.

 

[The Trekster]

and went commando several times during TNG's run and the movies).

And a greatful nation thanks him

 

[Cheapjack]

You just HATE the idea that things can be so cheap, that everyone can have them, don' t you? You'd be really lost in the ST universe.

I'm really trying to figure out why I should hate something that would suit me so perfectly? If that universe you talk about existed, I'd love to be there, I wouldn't have to worry about money, I could get anything I want, and I'd go travelling around the Earth and galaxy for free all the time, accompanied by my friends Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

But the problem is, Star Trek is supposed to be Science Fiction, not a fairy tale.

And as for the Federation being moneyless according to the shows, I'm sorry, but there's at least as much evidence, if not more, for the existence of money in the Federation, then there is for the "moneyless economy" (and BTW most of the evidence for the latter comes from character's statements rather than what we see on screen).

Using the analysis on this website:

For:

• Kirk asks Spock, "Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?". Spock starts to reply, "Twenty-two thousand, two hun ..." (TOS: "The Apple").
• Cyrano Jones negotiates the price of the Tribbles with the bartender on a Federation space station. The bartender is expected to pay with credits (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles").
• McCoy negotiates with an alien about a transfer to Genesis, and he says he would have enough money for that ("Star Trek III").
• Scotty says that he is going to buy a boat ("Star Trek VI").
• Beverly Crusher buys a roll of cloth, and has her account on the Enterprise billed (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint").
• Four Starfleet starships rally at a planet called Dytallix B, which is said to be owned by the Dytallix Mining Corporation. Dytallix is apparently in Federation space (TNG: "Conspiracy").
• The Federation bids a sum of 1,500,000 Federation credits for the Barzan Wormhole (TNG: "The Price", offer depicted in STTNG: The Continuing Mission).
• It becomes obvious that Dr. Apgar's reason for developing the Krieger wave generator was to sell it to the highest bidder (TNG: "A Matter of Perspective").
• Federation officers have to and are able to pay for drinks and for holosuite usage in Quark's bar (DS9).
• Quark sells his damaged shuttle to a scrapyard, obviously in the Sol system (DS9: "Little Green Men").
• Joseph Sisko is maintaining a restaurant in New Orleans, which is open every evening. Would he be at other people's service just for fun? (DS9: "Homefront", "Image in the Sand").
• Yanas Tigan owns a mining company on New Sydney. Although the planet may not be under Federation jurisdiction, Trill is clearly supposed to be a Federation member (DS9: "Prodigal Daughter").
• Tuvok, together with Janeway, buys a meditation lamp from a Vulcan master who doubles the price when he notices their Starfleet insignia (VOY: "The Gift").

Federation credits? What is that but money by another name?

Against:

• Kirk tells Spock about 20th century Earth: "They're still using money. We need to get some." In the same movie, when Kirk is unable to pay in the restaurant, Gillian asks sarcastically, "Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd century.", and Kirk tells her "Well, we don't." ("Star Trek IV")
• Picard tries to explain to Ralph Offenhouse from the 20th century that there would be no need for his law firm any longer: "A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions." (TNG: "The Neutral Zone")
• When she asks how much the ship has cost, Picard tells Lily: "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." ("Star Trek: First Contact")
• When Nog suggests that Jake should bid for a baseball card in an auction, Jake says: "I'm human, I don't have any money." Nog replies: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." (DS9: "In the Cards")
• Jake talks to Quark about publishing a book on his life on the occupied station with the Federation News Service. Quark asks, "And they are not paying you?", which Jake confirms (DS9: "You Are Cordially Invited").
• Janeway is visibly not accustomed to using money on the Mari marketplace. She may be just unsure about the value of the alien currency though (VOY: "Random Thoughts").
• Paris says about the significance of Fort Knox: "Well, uh, when the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum." (VOY: "Dark Frontier")

They just get an allowance from the government which means that they can do all those things that the middle classes and the rich can do today. That allowance isn't just a sum of credit, it's also a pass. But, it's limited. you can't do absolutlely anything. Some people will have MORE. If you are stuck for something to do, and you aren't into self improvement,you can clean toilets, or get your hands dirty working the soil,but if you want to take a weekend off and go to Hawai, you can. You can do it every month, if you want to, rather than having to do it every ten years, or once a lifetime, in the 20thC. And you would have no hope of it at all, if you cleaned toilets in the 17thC.

There may be people who would be a bit stuck for something to do, in this world, but they wuold find something. But, they would not be doing it a out of someone elses work, it would be free to all and there wuold be no need to feel guilty.

They do have credit,for the bigger things, and for alien races that use it. But they don't live for the aquisition of it, as we do. You could synthesise a whole pile of gold, and sit on it, if you wanted to, and say 'This is all mine, no-one can have it!' if you wanted to. You could charge people to come and look at it. But you would be an anachronism.

There may be people in the ST universe who want to work for peanuts and love the idea that someone is making a mint out of their labour and arrange a contract to to it, the way we have people who have sex slaves and bondage slaves today, but they would be a bit strange.

 

[DevilEyes]

They just get an allowance from the government which means that they can do all those things that the middle classes and the rich can do today. That allowance isn't just a sum of credit, it's also a pass.

Allowance consisting of what? An amount of "Federation credits", i.e. money? ... Oh, no, wait, they are not supposed to have money...

An allowance and a pass for a specific thing? Like, say, a ticket for the next flight to Mars? A ticket to the new concert of that popular artist? A piece of land to live on? What happens when the demand for these things is too high, and it's impossible for everyone to get them? (Land and housing is likely to be an especially serious problem, since Earth would certainly be overcrowded in the 24th century: even taking the World War 3 into account, with the advancement in medicine, higher life standard, lack of any wars on Earth, the population of Earth would quickly rise to tens and tens of billions.) So, it's the government that would have to decide on these things. I presume that a huge number of commissions would have to be established by the government, with the authority of making such decisions.

That means giving way too much power to the government... or rather, to the people appointed to decide on these things, who will be deciding who is most in need or most worthy of going on that flight, or who gets to live on that piece of land and who has to leave and look for a place to live on a colony. Even if they are very ethical and doing their best to make the right decision, the decisions would be very difficult and problematic in many cases. And unless every one of those people is as ethical as Picard, this would open all sorts of possibilities for misuse of power, for nepotism and corruption on a larger scale than there is today. (You certainly don't need money to have corruption. People can be bribed or demand bribe in all sorts of things: goods, services, favors, sexual favors...)

Unless it's not just the society but the human nature that has changed completely in the 24th century, and everyone has become perfect. Which Roddenberry might have believed possible, but which is actually extremely hard to believe, and unsupported by what we have seen on the screen (how many crazy rogue captains and bad/evil admirals have we seen on Trek?). And if so, if people were so perfect and without greed and desire for power, there would be no need to abolish money, a very useful and practical means of facilitating trade. People would just be using it for practical everyday matters, rather than trying to amass wealth.

Roddenberry got it backwards: it's not the money that is the reason for greed and inequality. It's the human nature, it's the possessiveness and desire for power, status, and/or luxury. If that were possible to change, it wouldn't matter at all if there is money around or not. Money in itself is nothing but a substitute for something else. And if you abolish money, but people are still the same, then greedy people will still be greedy, but for something else - goods, land, power, influence, people they can control...

They do have credit,for the bigger things, and for alien races that use it. But they don't live for the aquisition of it, as we do.

No, in the above scenario, they probably live for prestige and status, so they would be more likely to get the people in authority to hand them things they want, like, say, land and house, tickets to the next travel to Mars that's already overcrowded, a very sought after ticket to the concert of that popular artist, etc., rather than some schmuck who wants it as much as them but isn't that famous or respected?

You could synthesise a whole pile of gold, and sit on it, if you wanted to, and say 'This is all mine, no-one can have it!' if you wanted to. You could charge people to come and look at it. But you would be an anachronism.

Some people want to have a rare baseball card. What an anachronism...

 

[RobertScorpio]

I have always believed that KIRK was more central to TOS than Spock. Most of the media and fans seem to think Spock drove that show, but not me. I believe Star Trek was always at its best when Kirk was central to the story...and I believe it is his personality and wonder that were the most important part of that show...not Spock's vulcan heritage or 'alien' aspects.


Rob

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I like TAS more than TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Spock's death scene in TWOK was so awkwardly directed and acted that it borders on comedy.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They just get an allowance from the government which means that they can do all those things that the middle classes and the rich can do today. That allowance isn't just a sum of credit, it's also a pass.

Allowance consisting of what? An amount of "Federation credits", i.e. money? ... Oh, no, wait, they are not supposed to have money...

And they don't. Money in this case meaning 'physical currency which you carry around', like bills and coins. But there are such things as Federation credits, we've heard them mentioned several times. It's all automatic, though - you don't hand over a pile of currency, all transactions are 'electronic'. Kind of like people today who use only debit/credit cards and never carry cash.

 

[DevilEyes]

They just get an allowance from the government which means that they can do all those things that the middle classes and the rich can do today. That allowance isn't just a sum of credit, it's also a pass.

Allowance consisting of what? An amount of "Federation credits", i.e. money? ... Oh, no, wait, they are not supposed to have money...

And they don't. Money in this case meaning 'physical currency which you carry around', like bills and coins. But there are such things as Federation credits, we've heard them mentioned several times. It's all automatic, though - you don't hand over a pile of currency, all transactions are 'electronic'. Kind of like people today who use only debit/credit cards and never carry cash.

That's probably the only way to make sense of the "we don't use money" statements: semantics. Like a person who would say "money? No we don't use it today" because they are using a credit card. Which, of course, means they are in fact using money, since money doesn't have to mean "cash".

 

[USS Renegade]

However, like JJ Abram's 2009 Star Trek film, I consider [Enterprise] to be an alternate time line. But, unlike JJ Abram's film, it is an unexplained alternate time line.

Unfortunately for you, though, this never was the intention of anything we saw on screen. Nor was it the intention of the producers, who (you'll agree) are the only reliable source, when it comes to the actual intentions of the series.

However much you like to consider Enterprise to be an alternate timeline doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes it was always meant to portray the 22nd century of the known Star Trek universe; not an alternate one. Of course you can (and will) believe what you want. Who am I to stop you from believing something wrong?

I'm of the "Enterprise is in the NuTrek Universe" opinion myself. The Prime universe stories ended with Voyager.

Unfortunately for you, though, the intentions of what we saw on screen are irrelevant. Columbus intended to find a new route to India. He died believing that he did. No matter what his intentions were, he did not, in fact, find a shorter route to India.

Yes, TOS had some retcons in it. The United Earth Ship Enterprise, the Time Warp Drive, etc. TOS was a groundbreaking TV show, but it was not a franchise so it gets more allowances.

Everything after TOS was a franchise. Kirk was a legend to Picard and Sisko. Archer was never mentioned by Kirk. Picard had representations of every starship named Enterprise on the wall. The NX-01 was not among them. Enterprise contradicted many, many things already shown on screen in the Prime universe. No matter what the intentions of the producers were, both canon and reason point to the fact that Enterprise was a prequel to NuTrek and not to Prime Trek.

 

[B.C.]

Another vote for the ENT theme. I know its corny as hell, but I dig it.

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

I believe the order of which Star Trek movies are my favorite is an unpopular opinion:
1. Generations
2. Nemesis
3. TVH
4. TFF
5. First Contact
6. XI
7. TSFS
8. TWOK
9. Insurrection
10. TUC
11. TMP

 

[Nerys Myk]

However, like JJ Abram's 2009 Star Trek film, I consider [Enterprise] to be an alternate time line. But, unlike JJ Abram's film, it is an unexplained alternate time line.

Unfortunately for you, though, this never was the intention of anything we saw on screen. Nor was it the intention of the producers, who (you'll agree) are the only reliable source, when it comes to the actual intentions of the series.

However much you like to consider Enterprise to be an alternate timeline doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes it was always meant to portray the 22nd century of the known Star Trek universe; not an alternate one. Of course you can (and will) believe what you want. Who am I to stop you from believing something wrong?

I'm of the "Enterprise is in the NuTrek Universe" opinion myself. The Prime universe stories ended with Voyager.

Unfortunately for you, though, the intentions of what we saw on screen are irrelevant. Columbus intended to find a new route to India. He died believing that he did. No matter what his intentions were, he did not, in fact, find a shorter route to India.

Yes, TOS had some retcons in it. The United Earth Ship Enterprise, the Time Warp Drive, etc. TOS was a groundbreaking TV show, but it was not a franchise so it gets more allowances.

Everything after TOS was a franchise. Kirk was a legend to Picard and Sisko. Archer was never mentioned by Kirk. Picard had representations of every starship named Enterprise on the wall. The NX-01 was not among them. Enterprise contradicted many, many things already shown on screen in the Prime universe. No matter what the intentions of the producers were, both canon and reason point to the fact that Enterprise was a prequel to NuTrek and not to Prime Trek.

Absurd. A large portion of the "history" we see in Star Trek is retroactive. Siblings, children and significant others pop up out of thin air. Former commanders and billets never mentioned are suddenly art of backstories. Why draw the line at an Enterprise not mentioned or shown? The creators of those displays had no fore knowledge of Enterprise any more that the creators of TOS had knowledge of Carol Marcus or Sybok. Enterprise challenged a few preconceptions about the 22nd Century and slipped up on continuity a few times, but no more than any other shows.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Absurd. A large portion of the "history" we see in Star Trek is retroactive. Siblings, children and significant others pop up out of thin air. Former commanders and billets never mentioned are suddenly art of backstories. Why draw the line at an Enterprise not mentioned or shown? The creators of those displays had no fore knowledge of Enterprise any more that the creators of TOS had knowledge of Carol Marcus or Sybok. Enterprise challenged a few preconceptions about the 22nd Century and slipped up on continuity a few times, but no more than any other shows.

QFT

 

[Warped9]

I've hashed this argument out before. I even carry the idea further. But don't waste your breathe trying to convince anyone of it. Better just to interpret it your own way and keep it to yourself and let others interpret it their way.

 

[Cheapjack]

They just get an allowance from the government which means that they can do all those things that the middle classes and the rich can do today. That allowance isn't just a sum of credit, it's also a pass.

Allowance consisting of what? An amount of "Federation credits", i.e. money? ... Oh, no, wait, they are not supposed to have money...

An allowance and a pass for a specific thing? Like, say, a ticket for the next flight to Mars? A ticket to the new concert of that popular artist? A piece of land to live on? What happens when the demand for these things is too high, and it's impossible for everyone to get them? (Land and housing is likely to be an especially serious problem, since Earth would certainly be overcrowded in the 24th century: even taking the World War 3 into account, with the advancement in medicine, higher life standard, lack of any wars on Earth, the population of Earth would quickly rise to tens and tens of billions.) So, it's the government that would have to decide on these things. I presume that a huge number of commissions would have to be established by the government, with the authority of making such decisions.

That means giving way too much power to the government... or rather, to the people appointed to decide on these things, who will be deciding who is most in need or most worthy of going on that flight, or who gets to live on that piece of land and who has to leave and look for a place to live on a colony. Even if they are very ethical and doing their best to make the right decision, the decisions would be very difficult and problematic in many cases. And unless every one of those people is as ethical as Picard, this would open all sorts of possibilities for misuse of power, for nepotism and corruption on a larger scale than there is today. (You certainly don't need money to have corruption. People can be bribed or demand bribe in all sorts of things: goods, services, favors, sexual favors...)

Unless it's not just the society but the human nature that has changed completely in the 24th century, and everyone has become perfect. Which Roddenberry might have believed possible, but which is actually extremely hard to believe, and unsupported by what we have seen on the screen (how many crazy rogue captains and bad/evil admirals have we seen on Trek?). And if so, if people were so perfect and without greed and desire for power, there would be no need to abolish money, a very useful and practical means of facilitating trade. People would just be using it for practical everyday matters, rather than trying to amass wealth.

Roddenberry got it backwards: it's not the money that is the reason for greed and inequality. It's the human nature, it's the possessiveness and desire for power, status, and/or luxury. If that were possible to change, it wouldn't matter at all if there is money around or not. Money in itself is nothing but a substitute for something else. And if you abolish money, but people are still the same, then greedy people will still be greedy, but for something else - goods, land, power, influence, people they can control...

They do have credit,for the bigger things, and for alien races that use it. But they don't live for the aquisition of it, as we do.

No, in the above scenario, they probably live for prestige and status, so they would be more likely to get the people in authority to hand them things they want, like, say, land and house, tickets to the next travel to Mars that's already overcrowded, a very sought after ticket to the concert of that popular artist, etc., rather than some schmuck who wants it as much as them but isn't that famous or respected?

You could synthesise a whole pile of gold, and sit on it, if you wanted to, and say 'This is all mine, no-one can have it!' if you wanted to. You could charge people to come and look at it. But you would be an anachronism.

Some people want to have a rare baseball card. What an anachronism...

Devil Eyes;

I don't see that a pass would cause the problems that you see, and he reason for it would be that people are satiated a lot more by things in the 24th Century.

The pass would be like a ration card, or a pass that you get at a Star Trek convention. It would be limited and you would get it for free, one at birth, one at teenage, one at adulthood. You may have some problems with this free aspect, but aren't there small countries in our century that have discovered oil on their territory.and EVERYONE is loaded, in them? The only qualification you need, is that you are human and you live there. Fusion will do this. You could do limited things with your pass, feed yourself, access unlimited education, travel, synthesise somethings, maybe one gold ring a week and have a pile within a year. What you can't see is that people would be able to to the basics. reproduce, feed, home,travel,entertain themselves and that would be enough for most people. Some people would want more and you could get it, if you wanted. People are satiated. You could stuff yourself with creamcakes all day, if you wanted, and they would be ones that would pass straight through your system and not do you any harm. If you want more, the government would ask: Can you feed, are you sheltered,can you reproduce, are you free from persecution, what is it you want? If you want more, like a mansion, or a cruise liner, or a private island all to yourself, you would have to expend some extra effort.

I would be happy in this world. I would get on and do something.Some people wouldn't.

But, technology changes people. Fire has changed people. Bows and Arrows change people. Steam engines change people. They make people slightly less bestial and make their lives easier. Cheap fusion, as seen in the ST universe and replicators will. People's lives will be easier.

The powerful and the greedy and the selfish will oppose this at first. They will say that the lower orders will not know what to do with themselves, that they need order and work in their lives. They will say that there will be a free for all rush to synthesise weapons, mansions,unlimited wealth, spaceships,warships, but that given reason, will not happen. There will be a limit on what you can synthesise, just as there is a limit on social security checks now, and it will be reasonable and not enforced by a totalitarian state. You will be free to get on to do what you want to do, more than you can today. Some things you may not be able to have, like your own personal jet fighter and some things, you will not be able to do, because you will be limited by your own talents. It won't be a perfect world. But, it will be better than ours.

People will be changed by this. They will be slightly less bestial, selfish, grasping,untrusting. They will be more socially responsible. They will be more self motivated and less wage slaves, like we are. They could get up on a monday morning and have a plan for the week, and not be at a loose end. There'll still be mass murderers and death and horrible people and when captain picard goes to the toilet he will see much the same as what I see, give or take a few chemicals.

I think people WILL be forced to be educated in this world, more than they are now. They will be taught not to be as greedy and be responsible to others, but they will be individuals too. They will feel obliged to do something to improve the human condition and will not really need to be pushed in this respect.

There a laws even today, to stop individuals becoming to powerful. There are laws against monopolies. Even Bill Gates has to watch his step. You can only get so rich even in the 21st Century.

There will be some people who are absolute barstewards in the 24thC, don't worry about that. There will be some who will absolutely screw you. That dealer Fatjo comes to mind. There will be people, whom, despite all the efforts of those around them, care about nobody but themselves. But, they will be more refined barstewards.

 

[Volvic]

Bajorans got on my nerves almost all the time and part of the reason why I couldn't really get into Deep Space Nine.

As much as I liked Dr. Crusher, I thought Dr. Pulaski had a lot more going for her in terms of character. Sure she was a Bone's rip off, but then so was The Doctor from Voy to a degree.

I never really disliked Troi in TNG since back in the day I always fanwanked that she did a silly amount of paperwork i.e diplomatic prep work, the liaison between the civilians on board and Starfleet off screen. Hence not just being a biological scanner and having a purpose on the senior staff. I also think if the writers had just thought a little bit more out of the box and brought up her background a every now and then, she could have been one of the most interesting characters on the show.

Towards the end of TNG's run, Data was almost my least favourite character on the entire show. I felt he was way too overexposed, especially in season 7.

I never really cared for the Kilngons that much.

I always thought that Betazoids would have made fantastic villians in a creepy, sinster, yet pleasant and almost angelic way.

I thought Voyager had its moments and sometimes it came up with some rather decent ideas. It's just a shame they never followed through on them.

 

[DevilEyes]

Bajorans got on my nerves almost all the time and part of the reason why I couldn't really get into Deep Space Nine.

Funny, my unpopular opinion (as stated several pages ago) is that I like Bajorans and think they were one of the best developed races in Trek.

I wonder whose unpopular opinion is more unpopular?