What do you HATE about Star Trek?

[LMFAOschwarz]

I hate the need for crossovers. And there are so many of them, aren't there?

I offhand can't remember that many, really...although my memory is generally not to be trusted!

Crossovers have been common on tv for so long, though. Green Acres/Petticoat Junction/Beverly Hillbillies and The Andy Griffith Show/Gomer Pyle, USMC come to mind offhand.

I used to hate it in comic books, though. Having a concurrent run of, say, Iron Man, which requires a random issue of Daredevil plopped in the middle in order to have a whole story.

I believe Star Trek shows mostly had guest stars, which is a whole different thing.

 

[BillJ]

Don't agree? Fine. Then just be polite, unless you have some hidden agenda with me.

I think CorporalCaptain was replying to my thoughts on what David meant by saying Kirk couldn't stop the Genesis Device from going off.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I hate the need for crossovers. And there are so many of them, aren't there?

I offhand can't remember that many, really...

I believe Star Trek shows mostly had guest stars, which is a whole different thing.

Perhaps, you're right. It's just jarring, however. I'm in the minority, who does not get all acquiver to see George Takei in a STAR TREK era he doesn't belong in ... whatever. As you say, there really aren't all that many, but those that do exist stand out, like a turd in a punchbowl.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You gotta take a genius scientist at his word when it comes to plot points like that. No way means literally no way. Phaser it? Kaboom! Beam it? Can't get a lock. Don't waste your time.

The only refute David gives is when Kirk talks about going over to stop the genesis device. David says "You can't!". David is no soldier. He's a scientist. As I see it, the idea offered up by what Kirk says is to shut it down.

So all David would have need to say is "You can't! Phasers, transporter beam, nothing will stop it!" And that would've been enough. Don't agree? Fine. Then just be polite, unless you have some hidden agenda with me.

Excuse me? At no point did I address you at all.

First, I didn't even quote your post directly, since it was quoted in the post I was quoting.

Second, while I was addressing the question and issues BillJ raised, and therefore in direct reply to his post, I didn't directly address him either. The only "you" I referenced at all was the general you: the you who I said has to take the word of the genius scientist, that scientist who knows, even though he's not a soldier, that he doesn't have time for a lecture, because the clock is ticking. The you implicit in the hypothetical, suggested imperative to try phasering it [as there was formally no subject in that imperative/question], and who consequently would explode in a giant kaboom. The implicit you hypothetically trying to beam it [again no subject], but who wouldn't get a lock. The you who shouldn't waste his or her quite limited time trying things that we've been told well enough can't be done. Just a general you, hypothetically a character in these in-universe situations, who is able to try different alternatives as the clock runs down.

So, again, in universal translation, at no point did I address Gary7 at all. What the fuck, man?

 

[The Wormhole]

I hate the need for crossovers. And there are so many of them, aren't there?

I offhand can't remember that many, really...although my memory is generally not to be trusted!

There aren't, and most of the time there are other factors for including the crossover. There's passing the torch cameos for the pilot episodes (McCoy in Farpoint, Picard in Emissary, Quark in Caretaker) and anniversary events (Unification, Flashback, Trials and Tribble-Ations). Sometimes there's crossovers for the purpose of one series promoting the other (Dr. Bashir in Birthright, Quark in Firstborn, Dr. Zimmerman on DS9). The only ones that seemed to be done just for the hell of it were Relics on TNG, Defiant on DS9, Death Wish on Voyager as well as the Voyager episodes which featured Deanna Troi. And even then, "the hell of it" is probably inaccurate since the fact that the episode is a crossover can be promoted and draw in ratings.

And then there's TATV, but I think we're all agreed that episode was a mistake.

 

[BillJ]

The only crossovers I've really enjoyed were McCoy in "Encounter at Farpoint" and Kor, Koloth and Kang in "Blood Oath".

Crossovers always sound great on paper but the execution is usually lackluster.

 

[T'Girl]

^ but was mccoy in farpoint a cross over, or just a guest star?





.

 

[BillJ]

^ but was mccoy in farpoint a cross over, or just a guest star?

Huh?

He was a star in one series and played the character again in another series. I think that would qualify as a crossover.

 

[Timewalker]

In those days, we made uniforms out of whatever we could find. We had little club meetings and talked about our favorite episodes and had slideshows of film clips mail-ordered from typed and Xeroxed Lincoln Enterprises catalogs that you had to send away for in the first place.

I don't remember people back then complaining about character flaws or plot holes or moral compasses. It was just Star Trek, and we loved it. It never occurred to me or my friends that it had flaws. It was just a tv show, and it was a lot of fun.

I guess what I hate is that those days of appreciating what you had, because that's all there was, are gone forever.

Yep. There's so much nowadays that the new/younger fans have no idea what it was like in the '70s to get ecstatic about a new book, period. Mention putting together a club newsletter using a typewriter, mimeo (or photocopier in my case) and dealing with correction fluid, and you just get a blank look. It's taken for granted these days that there will always be more.

I'll admit that it's nice to have so much to choose from these days, but I do have fond memories of my weekly book-hunting forays on Saturday, and being figuratively over the moon if I found a new James Blish book or New Voyages or Star Trek Lives! My fanzine collection went from a couple of dozen slowly acquired via very expensive snailmail ordering to a few hundred via eBay, but I still love the physical, printed 'zines. They're artifacts of a bygone era, and as much as there is some really good fanfic online, it's not the same as holding the physical object that somebody physically put together 30-40 years ago.

Oh, also, seatbelts. They're in space.

Artificial gravity sometimes doesn't work. Or are you suggesting the International Space Station get rid of all their ways the crew has to anchor themselves in one spot so they can do their jobs?

Nevermind the time travel, nevermind his inability to follow orders, lets give him another ship.

I don't remember any of the charges Kirk was brought up on including time travel. Was that actually illegal?

^ but was mccoy in farpoint a cross over, or just a guest star?.

It was a respectful nod to the Original Series, and a reassurance to the fans that the Original Series characters weren't just tossed on the trash heap.

 

[Cyke101]

Trials and Tribbleations is mostly filler, but it's the best kind of filler -- enjoyable, entertaining, and tells a fun story. Plus, it does what we often ask of Trek, which is push the boundaries of SFX -- yes, it was possible for Forrest Gump to do it for a big movie, but (to my knowledge) it hadn't been done so seamlessly on television before. If we had to erase crossovers, I'd spare that episode for sure.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Crossovers are a mixed bag, but I say keep 'em - the good outweigh the bad. Spock as a wise old sage in the new movies is cool, Kirk meeting Picard was a letdown, McCoy in TNG was sweet, the treatment of Scotty in TNG left me fuming, Kor, Kang and Kodos were so unrecognizable as TNG-style Klingons I never even realized it was a crossover with TOS on first viewing, Q in Voyager was awesome, Barclay and Troi were not, Sulu in Voyager was okay, Worf on DS9 was meh, Riker and Troi in Enterprise was beyond horrible.

 

[T'Girl]

^ but was mccoy in farpoint a cross over, or just a guest star?

Huh?

It's like Unification, it wasn't the TOS era Spock in that a TNG episode, it was the TNG era Spock making a appearence. A continuation, not a crossover, it's not like Spock went back to the TOS era when the episode was over.

It was a nice guest appearence though.

 

[Timewalker]

Since TNG wasn't set too far beyond a reasonable lifespan for the TOS characters, what's wrong with the occasional mention of them/having them guest? I see nobody's mentioned Sarek yet...

 

[Cyke101]

Since TNG wasn't set too far beyond a reasonable lifespan for the TOS characters, what's wrong with the occasional mention of them/having them guest? I see nobody's mentioned Sarek yet...

Sarek unknowingly and unintentionally instigated a bar fight in Ten-Forward, a place full of synthehol.

That's more than enough reason to make him a regular cast member

 

[Armored Saint]

I guess it's similar to how I don't like my food touching. Everything has to be enjoyed discreetly and seperately.

I hate when the rosbiff sauce go on my mashed potatoes, but I disagree. It's the same universe, so it's normal there's some connections between the series. Of course, all of them had to be enough independant. For example, I don't think it would have been a great idea to follow the initial Roddenberry's idea of forgetting TOS alien races. I also think it was really not a great idea to recycle some TOS episodes in early TNG.

"Sarek" was not a perfect episode (Perrin as Amanda Grayson 2), the idea was pretty appropriate. Sarek was a major political figure and had a long lifespan.

 

[Gary7]

Excuse me? At no point did I address you at all.

First, I didn't even quote your post directly, since it was quoted in the post I was quoting.

Well, I thought it was addressing the point on both counts. And historically you've had a tendency to keep hammering away with me even after a completely plausible explanation was proffered. I wasn't saying it was the definitive answer. I was just indicating how EASY it would have been for David to have provided extra information to dispel some likely alternatives. That one short sentence wouldn't have taken away any precious minutes, while adding to the plausibility of dealing with the scenario. But you see... you went on for a full multi-sentence paragraph persistent to not let such a suggestion stand rather than saying "Yes, that's a good point." No. It's like there's some contest to win. And I simply don't enjoy that kind of discourse, so I'll bow out and tend to other matters.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The president in TUC was right.

It's difficult to see how.[...]

The president's job is to try and protect the nation while maintaining peace, which is what he did with that choice. And in the real world, at least with the US, we've seen presidents make choices like that for the exact same reason, by using diplomacy instead of force. Saving two men through force at the cost hundrds or thousands (or, if war does indeed start, potentially millions) doesn't quite justify it.

Chancellor Azetbur: "Mister President, let us come to the point. You want the conference to go forward and so did my father. I will attend in one week, on one condition. We will not extradite the prisoners and you will make no attempt to rescue them in a military operation. We would consider any such attempt an act of war."

President Backbone: "Yes I do want a conference and apparently we both want peace, but madam that peace will not be bought at the price of two men, or even one.

Chancellor Azetbur: "Mister President, what you're doing ..."

President Backbone (calmly): "Is my job and my duty. Madam Chancellor, your home world's atmosphere is heavily contaminated, you lack the means to both fight a major war and save the lives of the majority of your species, we both know this. You require our help, which we won't be in a position to give if we're fighting each other.

If your wish is to die as a people, far be it for me to deign you this ... now then, do you release those two men, or do we come and get them?

Your access to peace and survival, rests in the lives of those men. Or you can have neither

Madam Chancellor, what do you want, and how badly do you want it?"

Kirk and McCoy were convicted of murder; their trial respected in full klingon jurisdiction and law (both recognized by the federation) - indeed, when the Federation president said he's not above the law, the proofs of their guilt were not in doubt.
As such, the klingon actions of imprisoning 2 high level murderers in the deepest hell-hole they could find were quite justified.
And the Federation president respected both the letter and the spirit of the law when he said he's not above the law.

On the other hand, T'Girl, your 'all people are equal, but some are more equal than others' view* is quite unenlightened.

*As evidenced by your suggestion of strongarming the klingons in order to de facto treat federation (a stand in for the good old USA) citizens as above the law.

I don't hate anything about Star Trek, but ...

I'll tell you what I miss. I miss the days in the 70s when there wasn't so much Trek that people felt like they could pee all over the stuff they didn't like because there was always more coming down the road.

The Trek I grew up with was all there was. My friends and I loved it, exploring the bits and pieces of what we could see in the reruns after school. Building the AMT models and making cardboard backdrops and, in one case, lining a ceiling with black paper and spritzing on "stars" with flourescent paint so we could take pics with the blacklight on.

In those days, we made uniforms out of whatever we could find. We had little club meetings and talked about our favorite episodes and had slideshows of film clips mail-ordered from typed and Xeroxed Lincoln Enterprises catalogs that you had to send away for in the first place.

I don't remember people back then complaining about character flaws or plot holes or moral compasses. It was just Star Trek, and we loved it. It never occurred to me or my friends that it had flaws. It was just a tv show, and it was a lot of fun.

I guess what I hate is that those days of appreciating what you had, because that's all there was, are gone forever.

Free speech is by far preferable to the thought police you seem to prefer.

It never occurred to you or to your friends that it had flaws? Really?
Such uniformity of thought...I'm reminded of Orwell's 1984 world.

 

[Timewalker]

I don't hate anything about Star Trek, but ...

I'll tell you what I miss. I miss the days in the 70s when there wasn't so much Trek that people felt like they could pee all over the stuff they didn't like because there was always more coming down the road.

The Trek I grew up with was all there was. My friends and I loved it, exploring the bits and pieces of what we could see in the reruns after school. Building the AMT models and making cardboard backdrops and, in one case, lining a ceiling with black paper and spritzing on "stars" with flourescent paint so we could take pics with the blacklight on.

In those days, we made uniforms out of whatever we could find. We had little club meetings and talked about our favorite episodes and had slideshows of film clips mail-ordered from typed and Xeroxed Lincoln Enterprises catalogs that you had to send away for in the first place.

I don't remember people back then complaining about character flaws or plot holes or moral compasses. It was just Star Trek, and we loved it. It never occurred to me or my friends that it had flaws. It was just a tv show, and it was a lot of fun.

I guess what I hate is that those days of appreciating what you had, because that's all there was, are gone forever.

Free speech is by far preferable to the thought police you seem to prefer.

It never occurred to you or to your friends that it had flaws? Really?
Such uniformity of thought...I'm reminded of Orwell's 1984 world.

Oh, really - thought police? It's Orwellian to say that one misses the old days of fandom when things were, dare I say... more appreciated because there wasn't as much of it?

I see from your profile that you're a generation younger, and weren't even born until well after Star Wars, never mind Star Trek. There's nothing wrong with being younger, but you could do with a more open-minded attitude toward realizing that nostalgia doesn't equal "thought police."

From my own perspective, there were indeed some people who complained about character flaws and plot holes. They're the ones who wrote articles and letters for Trek magazine (I have a few of the originals, but read most of them in the Best of Trek books).

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Timewalker

I was not talking about mere nostalgia.

Indeed, urbandefaultwas was quite clear that he prefers an environment where everyone not only does not criticize his party line (likes/beliefs/etc), but can't even think of criticizing it.
Which is strikingly similar to Orwell's 1984's elites dream world.
It's just that urbandefaultwas's thought lacks 1984's thoroughness in thinking the idea through, as, as such, its logical conclusions - instead featuring standard 'jolly', 'having a good time' in his preferred world fluff.

As for me being open-minded - I did consider his image of a preferable world and found it lacking; utterly undesirable. Being open-minded most definitely does NOT imply treating every idea/thought as having equal value.


PS - Actually, I grew up watching TNG.

 

[Timewalker]

Timewalker

I was not talking about mere nostalgia.

Indeed, urbandefaultwas was quite clear that he prefers an environment where everyone not only does not criticize his party line (likes/beliefs/etc), but can't even think of criticizing it.
Which is strikingly similar to Orwell's 1984's elites dream world.
It's just that urbandefaultwas's thought lacks 1984's thoroughness in thinking the idea through, as, as such, its logical conclusions - instead featuring standard 'jolly', 'having a good time' propaganda.

As for me being open-minded - I did consider his image of a preferable world and found it lacking; utterly undesirable. Being open-minded most definitely does NOT imply treating every idea/thought - no matter how atavistic - as having equal value.

Considering that my Trek fandom goes all the way back to 1975 (and at that I'm definitely considered a latecomer), I completely understand where urbandefault is coming from. I played "Star Trek" with odd bits of stuff for costumes and props, including using pizza pans and cookie sheets for the transporter, and I remember my cousin and I at a playground; we used the teeter-totter as a stand-in for the helm/navigation console.

Urbandefault can confirm/deny/ignore this as he pleases, but my interpretation is that he was saying that he personally did not experience any conversations/read any articles where people were griping about character flaws, plot holes, etc. - that he had a fun, innocent, and appreciative kind of fan experience many years ago, and is feeling nostalgic for those days.

At no time did urbandefault tell everyone here who posts negative things what to think or to "shut up" if their opinions and his don't coincide.