When Trek insults our intelligence

[Timewalker]

I don't know, I've never read them.

I do know that the Intrepid actually appeared onscreen (for the first time) in the remastered version of "Court Martial", in which it was definitely shown to be a Constitution-class ship, with the registry NCC-1631.

And even in the original broadcast (of "The Immunity Syndrome"), the Intrepid was said to have a crew of 430 - just like the Enterprise - so it's strongly implied, even then, that it's a Connie.

I'm going by what was said in TOS. By the time of "Menagerie" Spock had served in Starfleet for well over a decade. Assuming he had at least 4 years of Academy training, and it becomes somewhere between 15-20 years.

Were any other Vulcans in Starfleet prior to Spock's entering Starfleet Academy?

I don't consider any novels to be valid sources in answering this, nor would I accept anything from Enterprise, due to the copious retcons in that series.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The only time Star Trek insults my intelligence when it suggests Starfleet officers don't serve in a military and don't get paid for doing so.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm more lenient on certain Star Trek than I am other Star Trek because there have been different intended audiences. TNG would sometimes have moral lessons that would be appropriate for a family show to have since there were children and teenagers watching. The same with DS9 and VOY to a lesser extent. So Picard giving a lecture on "The Right Thing To Do" wouldn't be something I'd consider insulting the audience's intelligence. Or explaining concepts that someone in middle school or high school might not understand, like having a character like Data or Seven of Nine who needs be taught about the social graces or what it means to be human.

If DSC, with its TV-MA rating did the same, I'd consider it patronizing the audience since that target audience is supposed to be and intended to be older. It's also why I don't mind DSC going into morally grayer territory. I know it's not trying to shape the Minds Of Tomorrow, the way TNG was. If a viewer doesn't have their moral compass by now, or know what's appropriate and not appropriate, they're never going to... until they learn the hard way.

 

[Timewalker]

I'm more lenient on certain Star Trek than I am other Star Trek because there have been different intended audiences. TNG would sometimes have moral lessons that would be appropriate for a family show to have since there were children and teenagers watching. The same with DS9 and VOY to a lesser extent. So Picard giving a lecture on "The Right Thing To Do" wouldn't be something I'd consider insulting the audience's intelligence. Or explaining concepts that someone in middle school or high school might not understand, like having a character like Data or Seven of Nine who needs be taught about the social graces.

How can it not be insulting the audience's intelligence when Picard goes into his preaching about nobody uses money, nobody ever suffers from lack of food, clothing, shelter, there's no want, nobody does anything for less than totally altruistic reasons, blah, blah, blah...?

Only Picard and Riker seem to actually believe this bullshit. And at that, Riker only appears to believe it part time, since they play for chips instead of points during their poker games.

 

[Vger23]

Personally, I feel that too many people establish their own personal worldview, lock it firmly into place, and don't allow anything to change it.

Then they sit up there on Mount Olympiss and judge, judge, judge.

Politics, wine tastings, and Star Trek fandom. It's certainly true in a lot of places these days.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Politics, wine tastings, and Star Trek fandom. It's certainly true in a lot of places these days.

We have wineries and racing here and this little town is growing more and more snobbish as the years pass.

 

[Lord Garth]

How can it not be insulting the audience's intelligence when Picard goes into his preaching about nobody uses money, nobody ever suffers from lack of food, clothing, shelter, there's no want, nobody does anything for less than totally altruistic reasons, blah, blah, blah...?

Ask that to the Bernie Sanders crowd.

 

[Timewalker]

Ask that to the Bernie Sanders crowd.

I'm Canadian, so I have no idea what this means.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm Canadian, so I have no idea what this means.

Bernie's considered a far-left politician, by American standards, and wants us to have easily affordable health care, free college, higher wages, and higher taxes to fund the government. Money would be less of an issue because everyone would have enough of it. Which is as close to Star Trek's 24th Century as you would theoretically get in today's America.

He challenged Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democrat Party to run against Republican Donald Trump. I was in the pro-Hillary camp which is why I said "ask the Bernie Sanders crowd!"

Point is: there are people who believe in TNG's vision and want to make it happen. And many probably watched as kids, so Picard's speeches would've made an impression in several cases.

The less impressionable the audience is, and the older they are, the less of an impression I think a show needs to make. Which ties back to DSC. I hope no one's looking to Lorca for Moral Leadership and I hope they realize how flawed some of Burnham's choices have been even if she's had good intentions. If people think it's messed up, that's great, because that's what they were supposed to think.

 

[Spot261]

Does Trek insult our intelligence?

 

[Timewalker]

Bernie's considered a far-left politician, by American standards, and wants us to have easily affordable health care, free college, higher wages, and higher taxes to fund the government. Money would be less of an issue because everyone would have enough of it. Which is as close to Star Trek's 24th Century as you would theoretically get in today's America.

He challenged Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democrat Party to run against Republican Donald Trump. I was in the pro-Hillary camp which is why I said "ask the Bernie Sanders crowd!"

Point is: there are people who believe in TNG's vision and want to make it happen. And many probably watched as kids, so Picard's speeches would've made an impression in several cases.

The less impressionable the audience is, and the older they are, the less of an impression I think a show needs to make. Which ties back to DSC. I hope no one's looking to Lorca for Moral Leadership and I hope they realize how flawed some of Burnham's choices have been even if she's had good intentions. If people think it's messed up, that's great, because that's what they were supposed to think.

Thank you for explaining. I'd vaguely heard of him and that he was Hillary's rival, but hadn't known what his platform included. He sounds like part-Liberal, part-NDP, which means I would likely have considered voting for him.

But who knows what's coming? My province has an election coming next spring and the next federal election here will be in October 2019. A lot can happen between now and then.

 

[lawman]

And if anything, the tone of Kelvinverse films is VERY close to the fun and adventure of TOS, upon which it was based.

Wow, seriously? I couldn't disagree more. I think they're almost polar opposites.

I also think it's rather snobbish to claim that the Kelvin films are "stupid,"

How so? The Abrams films practically thrive on insulting the audience's intelligence. They practically exemplify the term "idiot plot."

Trek 2009 had no more plot holes than TWOK, TSFS, and most of the other films.

That's really, really not true. Really. It's an exercise in endurance just to try to catalog them all.

My 15 year old son [is] not interested in even trying TOS

Well, that's a shame, and his loss. Why not?

Yours won't watch TOS because it's as divorced from him in time as Flash Gordon serials were to me at age 15. There's no possible way he can become emotionally invested. Appreciate it some day as quaint, perhaps, but he'll never be emotionally invested.

I don't follow your reasoning here. I can enjoy watching films from the 1930s or '40s (okay, not Flash Gordon, but higher quality stuff), and TV shows from the '50s, and have no problem getting emotionally invested. And this was equally true when I was a teen. What exactly do you imagine poses an "impossible" barrier between Star Trek and a teen today? The fact that something is old doesn't mean that it's hokey, or campy, or outdated, or irrelevant... or that its characters aren't human beings dealing with the same kinds of challenges we can relate to today.

I mean, you may be right about this particular kid's attitude, for all I know, but I don't think we can know without additional information, much less generalize about others his age.

We have indoctrinated two entire generations to they point where they cannot distinguish between fantastic nihilism and the reality of the world around them.

Yes, the tone of DSC is very different from the tone of TOS. But I really can't agree with this hypothesis as the reason. There are certainly lots of daunting challenges facing society today, but that's been true for prior generations as well. I don't think our culture as a whole is significantly more nihilistic, and certainly the Millennials among whom I live, work, and socialize aren't nihilistic on an individual level.

Things are only getting better.

OTOH, I can't agree with that either. Have you looked at American politics in the last couple of years?...

I invite everyone to read this article. In its entirety. Don't be put off by thinking it's all political. There is much more to it than that:

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/change/left_and_right.html

It's quite interesting.

It is indeed interesting, and why would anyone be put off by politics? (Granted, it's meat and bread to me... I'm a lifelong political junkie, and these days I study the stuff.) Political psychology in particular is a fascinating subfield, and the author does a good job summing up some of the major findings about differing attitudes across the political spectrum. (I could wish that he'd cite some of the specific research involved rather than just listing references at the end, but that's probably just the academic in me...)

How can it not be insulting the audience's intelligence when Picard goes into his preaching about nobody uses money, nobody ever suffers from lack of food, clothing, shelter, there's no want, nobody does anything for less than totally altruistic reasons, blah, blah, blah...?

Because Trek has always been set in an idealistic, utopian future?...

Ask that to the Bernie Sanders crowd.

Exactly!

He challenged Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democrat Party to run against Republican Donald Trump. I was in the pro-Hillary camp which is why I said "ask the Bernie Sanders crowd!"

Ah, sorry to hear that. Sanders would have won, y'know.

(Also, just a pet peeve, but it's the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat Party." Only right-wingers call it that!...)

 

[WraithDukat]

When Jadzia didn't know that Curzon loved her even though she is supposed to have all his memories.

 

[Gavin70]

It’s this sort of nonsense that led to the Gospel of St. Thomas being de-canonized. Get a grip.

In fairness, the Gospel of St. Thomas was never canon so it couldn't have been de-canonized. It was written before there was any concept of a Biblical canon and by the time Christians began thinking about what should or shouldn't be included, it was widely accepted that Thomas wasn't something that should be included. In every writing talking about what should or shouldn't be included in the canon, Thomas was never mentioned as something that should be considered.

 

[Timewalker]

Because Trek has always been set in an idealistic, utopian future?...

TNG and those after are set in an idealistic, utopian future. Or... are they? Tasha didn't have an idealistic, utopian childhood. In a way, neither did Julian Bashir. His parents engaged in illegal dealings and black market medical services to improve him. Of course there's a part of him that would always resent that they didn't think he was good enough as his original self.

Ask the miners and the women in "Mudd's Women" if they live in an idealistic utopia. The miners live on a harsh desert where there isn't enough water to spare for washing, and they literally buy their wives from Harry Mudd. The women come from backwater planets where there aren't enough men available, or at least not the sort of men who could provide them with the kind of lives they want. Cyrano Jones trafficks in all kinds of dubious merchandise, and basically lives on a shoestring. Where's his utopia?

This whole "no money/no want in Star Trek" bullshit started with TNG. When Kirk mentioned needing money in STIV, he meant cash. None of them could just push a button on a tricorder or communicator and make arrangements with their bank, could they?

And in TNG, we immediately see Beverly Crusher engaging in a financial transaction with one of the natives. She directed that her purchase be charged to her account on the Enterprise. So either Picard is living in a state of constant denial, or Beverly got away with theft. Picard and Riker can make all kinds of pompous speeches they want, but the fact is that there are people in TNG, DS9, and Voyager who don't have everything they need, let alone what they want. There is a thriving economy as well as an underclass in all three series, and no amount of pompous speeches can erase that.

In "The Measure of a Man" the Admiral talks to Picard on two occasions of "buying you dinner/a drink" (I don't recall the exact words). Why didn't Picard give her a lecture about no money, no want, no need to buy anything?

All these contradictions and hypocrisy are things I consider insulting to the audience. Pick one and go with it. But don't say one thing and show the other and insist that "No, pay no attention to what you see. It's what Picard says that's actually the truth."

 

[Gavin70]

Might be interesting for someone to compile a list of instances in which the movies contradicted the canon of the original series. Like Khan and Chekov.

I wouldn't take an instance like that as an outright contradiction. Sure Chekov wasn't in the cast for the episode with Khan, but there's nothing in TOS to indicate exactly when Chekov joined the crew and there are enough gaps in the episode where Khan could have interacted with non-bridge crew off screen. It's clearly a mistake by the screenwriter(s) but there's enough wriggle room to avoid a clear contradiction.

A real contradiction is something like TNG "The Price" where Troi's ability to sense the emotions of the Damon is an important plot point and yet later it's made clear that Betazoids can't sense Ferengi emotions.

 

[PiotrB]

The existence of the USS Intrepid - a Starfleet vessel crewed entirely by Vulcans - proves it.

Who got there first - Spock or the Intrepid crew?

T'Pol century earlier was first Vulcan in Starfleet.

 

[Timewalker]

T'Pol century earlier was first Vulcan in Starfleet.

I specified earlier that I don't accept Enterprise as a valid source because of the copious retcons.

Please provide TOS references to support your conclusion.

 

[PiotrB]

I specified earlier that I don't accept Enterprise as a valid source because of the copious retcons.

Sorry but I didn't know that we were discussing your fanfiction. Fortunately in canon dispute about first Vulcan in Starfleet ended in 2005.

 

[Timewalker]

Sorry but I didn't know that we were discussing your fanfiction. Fortunately in canon dispute about first Vulcan in Starfleet ended in 2005.

WTF does this even mean?

We're not talking about anyone's fanfiction. I am talking about when the first Vulcan joined Starfleet ACCORDING TO TOS SOURCES.

That means according to The Original Series, The Animated Series, or the TOS movies.