Absolutely, these things are very much part and parcel of human nature and our instincts.
We can only hope the instinct to challenge them is just as strong.
Why Do We Demand Internal Consistency & Continuity in Star Trek?
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
Absolutely, these things are very much part and parcel of human nature and our instincts.
We can only hope the instinct to challenge them is just as strong.
A loss of perspective is not unique to discussions on world building and technology. They are usually when people do discuss these messages you speak of. Perspective goes out the door when one insists they have the only worthwhile one.
No, the problem is that world building was never really intended, it wasn't the purpose of Star Trek, hence it really not being there.
You kind of just validated my point, lol
You kind of just validated my point, lol
How so?
I'm not claiing it's not there because I don't value it, I'm stating it isn't there because no one making the show did
No one making the show did any world/universe building? Get real.
Not really no, only the most superficial token efforts.
TOS really wasn't meant to be much different from modern American life, with the galaxy being various parallels to the world, eg Klingons basically stand-ins for Soviet Russia. Roddenberry didn't really start thinking about worldbuilding until Phase 2, which ended up being presented in the TMP novelization, and that was bizarre to put it milidly. The rest of the TOS movies basically stuck with a futuristic America until TNG came along with its utopia stuff which more or less defined the rest of the franchise. Even then, we don't really know much about the world the characters live in, just that they talk down to everyone else claiming to be superior to them, and then crying when someone like Q shows up and treats them the same way.
You see this is what I meant when I referred to perspective. Yours or mine isn't the only one. Why do you have a problem acknowledging that we don't all come with the same filter? That what we get out of a product can be individual and varied?? You could tell me a dozen times that the Trekverse is a non-entity and I just am not convinced at all. Does that mean I can't be influenced by these deeper messages? Of course not.
If Trek was meant to be current day then it would be current day. It is set in the setting it has created.
Exactly, who actually knows much about the federation other than how starfleet operate? How do ordinary people live? How is it governed?
None of this stuff has been explored in depth because none of it matters. All we know is there is this organisation called the federation which is sort of roughly like the UN, which may or may not have money.
Because it isn't about our filters, it's about the stated purpose of the show, which is exactly how it was made in practise.
Was there supposed to be a 'How to watch Star Trek' guide I missed out on?
Oh those silly folk who created it. I blame theme for calling it 'Star' Trek and rabbiting on about boldly going where no man has gone before and all that seeking out stuff. Sounded like a mission statement to me... er set in the future... like with space ships.
I think you are just pulling your usual nonsense and squabbling because you haven't got it in you to let go when you've so clearly got nothing left to say. Really can't help but feel anyone looking over this thread would see the same thing, am calling it a day on this, take care.
It is 100% true that the worldbuilding in Trek was a later, post TOS phenomena. At the same time, it was very clear near the end of his life Roddenberry wanted to build Trek into a cohesive mythos and timeline. Since it came from the Great Bird himself (however flawed he was at times) I think we have to take his later retcons (like the Federation being effectively post-capitalist) as gospel - at least for the PU.
I'd personally enjoy Star Trek more if it were more consistent.
I couldn't care less about the number of decks on the ship but something like suddenly not being able to go over Warp 10 in the Berman/Braga series really annoys me.
I thinks its OK to argue about it if we keep it in good humour. I mean you don't have to go into the 70 page decks thread unless you want to.
I couldn't care less about the number of decks on the ship but something like suddenly not being able to go over Warp 10 in the Berman/Braga series really annoys me.
I thinks its OK to argue about it if we keep it in good humour. I mean you don't have to go into the 70 page decks thread unless you want to.
Wouldn't it have been awesome if Q had called them snowflakes?
I wonder what Star Trek would have been like had it been tightly controlled from the beginning. Of course, that would have been impossible. In the beginning, it was simply one TV show and certainly no one could have predicted that it would have blown up into the franchise it is today.
Not really. The problem with all these retcons like no money, Starfleet isn't a military and what not is they are the by-product of a mentally ill alcoholic who began believing in his own publicity to the point where he basically ruled by fiat, I say it, you follow it, no discussion. Unfortunately, no one actually knew how such a world was supposed to operate. Money is what makes the world go around, and without it, there is nothing to motivate the greater majority of humanity to give a shit. Starfleet isn't a military, but acts and behaves exactly like a military, is structured and organized exactly like a military and does everything a military does. But since Gene Said It, these retcons have become inherently binding to the point that they have become Holy Commandments of the franchise which all writers are expected to follow even if no one actually knows what any of it means or how it's supposed to work.
Gene Roddenberry has only had so much creative control over the franchise as a whole, he wasn't a God, nor was he a messiah. Frankly beyond outlining broad ideas he wasn't even all that great a creative force, most of the real creativity always came from other people.
We can take as gospel that those statements were made in those episodes and draw attention to the fact if you wish, sure, but as far as all the many other instances (including post TOS, and countless threads in here will show years of debate over them) which contradict them, why get worked up over it? Why not just accept none of it really makes any sense in universe and move on?
Why not just overlook the fact that Trek is so internally inconsistent across the franchise that getting emotionally invested in forcing that consistency is a fool's errand which distracts from the larger point of the show?
Similar threads
- Locked
