Yes, background information frequently makes it into the novels and comics, only to be contradicted in the shows and movies later. Oof.
Otoy excelled themselves by referring to so much non canon stuff.
Last edited:
Otoy excelled themselves by referring to so much non canon stuff.
"The Survivor" is a TAS episode.
Ah thanks! Reluctantly accepted as half canon by many but canon nonetheless.
Have you talked to people lately?
Thank you. Personal wealth is inextricably woven throughout both TAS and TOS. The idea that the 23rd-century Federation somehow doesn't operate on money is a major franchise myth. Roddenberry apparently mandated this unsupportable (and unsustainable) notion during early TNG, but the canon itself refutes the fantasy even in the 24th century.
More than you ever have.
Last edited:
It's a bit like the rule that there should be no internal conflict between the main characters. The writers can't help but add those things into the stories because they're interesting.
Energy should be the currency of the future but it must be difficult to get on board with that when the writers come from the most Energy guzzling society in the world. Warping space takes massive amounts of energy compared to every other function of the ship, yet they always run out of power to the shields.
Well, how else can there be any drama?
Yet, Star Trek was never more popular than it was then.
I suppose if there's a way for people to earn energy, store it, and spend it later, then energy could become a replacement currency for what we think of as "money." Probably we could argue that cryptocurrency is a nascent form of this.
A good comparison. It's pretty hard to tell compelling stories in a universe that pretends to have no interpersonal conflict and pretends to have no wealth. These are fundamental aspects of the human condition. You might as well try to build a franchise around a future where there's no romance or sex or mate-relationships, and humans have all long since been replaced by robots or clones. All of these sci-fi ideas are fine for one episode, one movie, one planet, but you can't build three or seven or sixty years of stories on such a kneecapped foundation.
And even if you somehow could, it would be so unrelatable to the audience that it would lack staying power. Imagine trying to make a whole franchise about the Mariposan clones of Bringloid V from TNG's "Up the Long Ladder."
The real baffling part is the cost-benefit ratio. These restrictions will either hamper your writers for the life of your show, or they will cause a kind of split-personality disorder from episode to episode. But what's the benefit? I guess it plays to those who want to believe in the inevitable "perfection" or "evolution" of humanity, and believe that making money disappear will help accomplish that, but it's an ineffective basis for an interesting and lasting TV show. And eventually you have to forget about your overly restrictive rules and just write.
I suppose that could be true, but if it is then it's in spite of the no-conflict rule, not because of it. And of course as Roddenberry became sidelined they forgot that rule existed, by necessity. Some of the best moments across the various Star Treks come out of heightened conflict between the characters, followed by reconciliation. McCoy and Spock in episodes such as "Bread and Circuses," for example. In First Contact, the "if you were any other man" shocker and its resolution still give me chills.
Any data to actually support that? Maybe people enjoyed being able to come home and flip on the TV and not have people who are on the same side yelling and screaming at each other, appreciate that they worked together for the common good and that facts should dictate how to proceed.
Well, it's an opinion, as is yours. If you have some data to present, I'll see if I can maybe match it.
This feels a bit strawmannish. If you are assuming that I prefer a Star Trek where the main characters often yell and scream at each other, I should say that I do not. That's why I don't watch any of the irrational Kurtzman slop where everybody is always crying or angry, and subjective feelings rule the day. I never got past the first 20 minutes of Strange New Worlds because of the blatant insubordination that passed without comment or consequence.
I prefer the kind of Star Trek where characters can interact with each other like normal human beings in a professional team context. Sometimes that means differences of opinion and misunderstandings, especially in times of heightened stress or alien influence. Sometimes things get a little heated, and we say things we later regret. Then we reconcile and everything's great again. TOS was good at this. Bailey, Stiles, Stocker, Spock/McCoy. One of my favorites is Uhura/Kirk in The Naked Time. Stargate SG-1 was also good at this. TNG at first tried to be too utopian, then softened a bit in later years. The Jellico storyline was excellent. DS9 said "let's make this about real, imperfect people with a bit more to disagree about."
I don't live for the disagreements, but I do enjoy the resolutions.
Every show that leaned into strife became less and less popular.
I didn’t say anything of the kind. Just noting what the most popular Trek had that is absent from other iterations of the franchise, including TOS which is my favorite. Those shows suffered in ratings compared to TNG.
TOS had an awful lot of arguing. I think the point is that if you have guard rails, you don't stray very far beyond them for very long. With no guard rails, the writers can stray anywhere they like, and in a fictional world with a long history, that gets very messy very quickly.
First grade English is hardly mathematics.
Or a Starship captain with inconsistent middle initials? Or a brilliant biracial genius who can assist in his own surgery yet needs to be slapped repeatedly to achieve a consciousness he simultaneously demonstrates? Or deceased guards who pass themselves off as different officers after their resurrection? Or the horrible acting from the OMEGA GLORY officer who left Kirk a warning? Or Chekov in general?
Harsh, but fair.
Similar threads
