So what do you guys like about Star Trek?

[Wesley Street]

On topic: My theory about Tuvok is that his character failed because he was the only pure Vulcan character in ST lore who wasn't either trying to be/understand humans or trying to get it on with one or more humans. He was supposed to be happy being 100% logical all the time, making him hard to write for humans who can't relate to this mindset.

I think that's a very good point. The Kirk/Spock relationship revolved around Kirk (The Rebel) teaching the uptight Spock (The Establishment) that it's okay to have feelings once in awhile. Tuvok would have made an excellent counter-Spock; teaching that discipline and detachment have a place in the human condition as well.

Except that Seven stole that role.

I thought that Kes had a lot of potential; showing an entire lifetime of experiences in seven years could have been unique. I'm sure that if the series had ended the way the producers had expected, back in the first season, it would have revolved around her death.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, just going around stardestroyer.net and memory alpha and the sfdebris channels...

It seems that more than a few fans are dissatisfied with the utopian, idealistic Federation. People openly sneer at the communistic morals and gleefully pounce at perceived moral failings of the Federation and blow them out of proportion. Like having Section 31 proves that the Federation are a bunch of whining, elitist hypocrites and the society is a fraud.

Like, why is that?

[Zinegata]

Short answer? Different taste.

Stardestroyer.net is a lot more right-wing than TGD. The admin is very dead set against communism for example, and let's be honest - TNG depicts a left-wing utopia from the (possibly deranged) mine of Gene Roddenberry.

(OTOH, SD.net is far more tolerant of conflicting political views than TGD, so I like it a lot more and people there can also do the math)

---------

However, that being said the critics have a valid universal point: TNG depicts a Mary Sue society. And not everyone likes a Mary Sue.

Human civilization has lasted for several thousand years. And despite the technology and potential to do so, we simply have not solved all of the world's problems, and often create as many problems as we solve.

Why should we expect the future to be different?

SD.net in fact pithily summarizes the stark contrast between the TOS and TNG. "In Kirk's day, he'd encounter a terrible alien danger and he'll find a way to kill or stop it. In Picard's day, he'd encounter a terrible alien danger and ask it nicely to stop. When has the latter ever happened in real life?"

Note though, that you can easily make a series that focuses on sci-fi diplomacy as opposed to "blow shit up" without having to make your society Mary Sue.

TNG is respectable in how it promotes diplomacy as a method of conflict resolution. But it blows because it doesn't depict diplomacy in a realistic fashion and how it always works (and how mind-numbingly stupid the Federation has become. The Captain of their biggest battleship refuses to run military exercises to maintain fighting readiness?)

[Josh_Kablack]

he'd encounter a terrible alien danger and ask it nicely to stop. When has the latter ever happened in real life?"

So has Kennedy embargo of Cuba, which has continued right on to the present day produced a more open market and reduced the influence of Communist ideologies more than the expansion of trade with China which began under Nixon and was expanded under Clintion?

Because it sure seems to me like that argument is claiming the Bay of Pigs was a success.

[Zinegata]

he'd encounter a terrible alien danger and ask it nicely to stop. When has the latter ever happened in real life?"

So has Kennedy embargo of Cuba, which has continued right on to the present day produced a more open market and reduced the influence of Communist ideologies more than the expansion of trade with China which began under Nixon and was expanded under Clintion?

Because it sure seems to me like that argument is claiming the Bay of Pigs was a success.

False argument. Just because shooting people doesn't always work, doesn't mean that diplomacy always works. They are not mutually exclusive

Diplomacy in the real world always involves one important thing that TNG often ignores: Leverage. "I can give you X, if you give me Y." "If we have peace, we will both prosper against the Romulans." and "If you don't stop eating people I will nuke your planet and sow salt on it!"

Such use of leverage is almost notably absent in TNG. In fact - the best TNG episode mentioned by Frank (Chains of Command) is one of the few were both sides were using leverage (of the non-fluffy nice sort) to get what they wanted.

In most other episodes Picard seems to prefer scrapping the Enterprise' weapons and meet everyone with open arms.

Key word: "Nicely". Diplomacy often doesn't go that way.

[Josh_Kablack]

he'd encounter a terrible alien danger and ask it nicely to stop. When has the latter ever happened in real life?"

So has Kennedy embargo of Cuba, which has continued right on to the present day produced a more open market and reduced the influence of Communist ideologies more than the expansion of trade with China which began under Nixon and was expanded under Clintion?

Because it sure seems to me like that argument is claiming the Bay of Pigs was a success.

False argument. Just because shooting people doesn't always work, doesn't mean that diplomacy always works. They are not mutually exclusive

But I was responding to a "when has the latter ever worked?" pseudo-rhetorical question.

By pointing out that "Summer 1997" is an entirely valid answer to that question if taken perhaps more seriously than the original poster intendend, I can demonstrate that the argument "There does not exist a time when X has worked" is false. There does exist such a time, and I can freakin' name it.

And it's completely immaterial to that point whether the arguments "There exists a time when X has failed", and "There exists a time when Y has also failed" are true or false.

********************************

But in the general sense, I agree with you, yes leverage is a key in diplomacy. And conversely, achieving diplomatic ends should figure into military strategery. And my government has no shortage of recent historical examples of bungling things by focusing too much on one end solely and neglecting the other

[Lago PARANOIA]

I want to watch some 'So Bad It's Good' Star Trek episodes. Not 'So Bad It's Good' in a campy kind of way like when Kirk fights that Gorn, but I mean in a way where you're laughing at how awful the story and dialogue is.

What do you guys got for me? I don't want soul-crushingly bad episodes like Unexpected and The Andorian Incident, I want hilariously dumb episodes like Threshold.

[Wesley Street]

"Code of Honor" from TNG. If you thought the Gungans were offensive African tribal stereotypes, the Ligonians beat them to the punch decades earlier. Not soul-crushingly bad, just incredibly eye-rolling.

Also, "Spock's Brain."

[fbmf]

"Code of Honor" from TNG. If you thought the Gungans were offensive African tribal stereotypes, the Ligonians beat them to the punch decades earlier. Not soul-crushingly bad, just incredibly eye-rolling.

Also, "Spock's Brain."

Note that in "Spock's Brain", Kirk fucks up the supplemental log entry and gives an earlier date than the initial entry. Star dates weren't kept up with, apparently, until TNG.

Game On,
fbmf

[Lago PARANOIA]

I haven't watched any DS9 episodes aside from In the Pale Moonlight yet, because I don't want to spoil myself. I've been mostly sticking to TOS and VOY, with some TNG thrown in now and again.

Even so, why did DS9's ratings decline so much in its twilight years? Almost all Trek fans, even the ones that don't like the series (like AVGN and confusedmatthew) say that it's a great show. So why is DS9 sort of like the forgotten middle child of the franchise?

[Lago PARANOIA]

So, what's with Star Trek's transhumanism ban? Not knowing much about the backstory of Earth I can sort of see what they were going for in the Genetics Wars with Khan--a total Gattaca thing.

But like, in the far future where everyone has universal health care and science is ridiculously advanced, why are people like Bashir supposed to be rare and such?

I find this really hard to believe that this is out of some sort of human-centered resentment, because no one seems to mind (except for McCoy somehow, but I chalk that up to 60's schizophrenia) working alongside Vulcans--and Vulcans are pretty much better than humans in every way. Or how about Data. Same deal and he's actually the commander on a starship.

Like, what gives?

[Neeeek]

I find this really hard to believe that this is out of some sort of human-centered resentment, because no one seems to mind (except for McCoy somehow, but I chalk that up to 60's schizophrenia) working alongside Vulcans--and Vulcans are pretty much better than humans in every way.

Well, the Vulcans might not be interested in mating with humans for that exact reason.

[tzor]

Well, the Vulcans might not be interested in mating with humans for that exact reason.

Since arranged marrages and the "seven year" male problem are a part of the Vulcan canon it would seem that Vulcan/Human relationships would be difficult at best.

In fact you don't even need the "seven year" problem. I know a lot of young co-workers from India. At one point they all flew home to meet (and marry) the ones that the families chose for them, celebrated their homeymoon and came back to continue work. This wasn't some "clever plot" to get their wives into the country, this was just how things worked in their culture.

Spock's father was a significant exception, one might almost call him a Vulcan Hippie. He choose to be an ambassaror to humans and he practically disowned his son for joining the military star fleet academy.

[Cynic]

So, I'm rewatching Babylon 5. I notice it and Star Trek share the overhead monologue in the beginning/end. Does anyone know if there was a reason why Roddenberry added a feature that was mostly used in noir to a sci-fi show?

edit: Also a young Sheridan is something I don't even remember.

[K]

As I understand it, the Feds are against transhumanism because the Eugenics Wars basically destroyed the planet. It's a whole "our morals need to advance as much as our tech" response to someone trying take over the world using asymmetric force (super-soldiers and nukes in this case).

Now, you'd think that since the other worlds in the Feds would have a different experience, you have things like the Vulcans who are all about mastery the self over meditation rather than tech so I figure everyone just fell into line when they joined the Fed.

I think the classic transhuman problem is shown by the Borg. They are basically one person setting in motion a singularity event and being a pain for everyone else. I mean, if you read between the lines you basically can see that the Borg Queen is basically playing a god-game like Civilization, but with real people and Civilizations.

[Calibron]

Diplomacy in the real world always involves one important thing that TNG often ignores: Leverage. "I can give you X, if you give me Y." "If we have peace, we will both prosper against the Romulans." and "If you don't stop eating people I will nuke your planet and sow salt on it!"

I love the imagery of the one guy or team who's job it is to sow individual pellets of salt into a planet sized sheet of glass doing so.

I think the classic transhuman problem is shown by the Borg. They are basically one person setting in motion a singularity event and being a pain for everyone else. I mean, if you read between the lines you basically can see that the Borg Queen is basically playing a god-game like Civilization, but with real people and Civilizations.

Interesting, my favorite idea of transhumanism for the last couple years has been a single consciousness in multiple bodies(likely via radio, or some analog thereof, and relatively mild brain mods with a range limitation *shrug*); though on a much, much smaller scale than the Borg. Does that mean I should be rooting for the bad guys in Star Trek?

[Lago PARANOIA]

As I understand it, the Feds are against transhumanism because the Eugenics Wars basically destroyed the planet. It's a whole "our morals need to advance as much as our tech" response to someone trying take over the world using asymmetric force (super-soldiers and nukes in this case).

This doesn't really make much sense TBH. In the distant future, especially when the military is highly mechanized, being a super-soldier just isn't that much of an advantage. The only thing that would really help you is enhanced intelligence--except that at this point in time people have androids, holograms, and are bosom buddies with a race of supergeniuses. I know the Zimmerman and Data thing is fairly recent as far as the TNG/DS9/VOY continuity goes, but if people aren't scared of uber-sentient AI then why are they afraid of humans achieving a fraction of that ability?

All in all, I think it's grossly unfair and immoral of the Federation to effectively force humans and other such species to be literally retarded compared to the mental capabilities of the other races.

[K]

As I understand it, the Feds are against transhumanism because the Eugenics Wars basically destroyed the planet. It's a whole "our morals need to advance as much as our tech" response to someone trying take over the world using asymmetric force (super-soldiers and nukes in this case).

This doesn't really make much sense TBH. In the distant future, especially when the military is highly mechanized, being a super-soldier just isn't that much of an advantage. The only thing that would really help you is enhanced intelligence--except that at this point in time people have androids, holograms, and are bosom buddies with a race of supergeniuses. I know the Zimmerman and Data thing is fairly recent as far as the TNG/DS9/VOY continuity goes, but if people aren't scared of uber-sentient AI then why are they afraid of humans achieving a fraction of that ability?

Well, Data and the Vulcans aren't actually super-smart. They are very smart and they live a long time, but they don't actually solve problems better than humans who are also very smart. I mean, Data is not even as smart as his creator considering that he can't even figure out how to make other androids (and he can look at his own design any time he wants). At best, they have some tricks like perfect memory and perfect calculating ability (both pretty useless in a world where ultra-powerful computers are always an arm's reach away).

My understanding of the Eugenics Wars is that they made super-smart guys, creating a tyranny of the smart over the less smart. It's about as offensive as creating slave classes of functional idiots.

Considering the episodes where they appeared, the super-soldiers were basically master problem solvers who were also complete douches and really only failed due to doucheness. I could see people freaking out over enhancement when Khan Singh and the Borg are the proven cases of transhumanism you have as case studies.

Heck, considering that the original series had them fighting god-like beings every third episode, I can see why they'd avoid transhumanism in any form. Super-powers = super-asshat seems to be a recurring theme.

[Username17]

Interesting, my favorite idea of transhumanism for the last couple years has been a single consciousness in multiple bodies(likely via radio, or some analog thereof, and relatively mild brain mods with a range limitation *shrug*); though on a much, much smaller scale than the Borg. Does that mean I should be rooting for the bad guys in Star Trek?

First: you should watch Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society.

Anyway, being Borg is pretty damn awesome except for the Queen. Like half the Seven of Nine episodes revolve around the reality that Borg >> You. And don't forget that episode with the damaged cube where the planet was full of crime and lawlessness because thy couldn't get the telepathic matrix together and then they fixed it and everyone worked together in hippie commune perfection instead.

As far as I can tell, the big drawback of Borg life is that Queens sit around using people for foot stools. It's sort of like Animal Farm with one pig per cube.

Considering the episodes where they appeared, the super-soldiers were basically master problem solvers who were also complete douches and really only failed due to doucheness. I could see people freaking out over enhancement when Khan Singh and the Borg are the proven cases of transhumanism you have as case studies.

Heck, considering that the original series had them fighting god-like beings every third episode, I can see why they'd avoid transhumanism in any form. Super-powers = super-asshat seems to be a recurring theme.

Yeah, none of the super powered dudes ever seem to want to uplift the general human condition - they just want to enslave everyone. Most of the god machines keep their subjects in grass-skirt-wearing barbarism in order to keep the locals from having the capability to overthrow them.

In a universe like that, I can genuinely see why knee-jerk anti-transhumanism would be the standard. If you find a super-computer tikki god, blow it the fuck up. First thing.

-Username17

[tzor]

So, I'm rewatching Babylon 5. I notice it and Star Trek share the overhead monologue in the beginning/end. Does anyone know if there was a reason why Roddenberry added a feature that was mostly used in noir to a sci-fi show?

It's also used a lot in the original series of Battlestar Galactica, although only at the end of the e[siode. (In fact we see the idea of the voice to text recorder being used. Star trek used audio logs.) I'm going to venture a guess in that the notion of the "ship's log" is such a strong tradition in naval tradition that it seems like a good "anchor" to place a "ship" based adventure on.

[tzor]

Anyway, being Borg is pretty damn awesome except for the Queen. Like half the Seven of Nine episodes revolve around the reality that Borg >> You.

The whole problem with the Borg was that it started out, as you say, "damn awesome" and went downhill rapidly from there. The reason was simple; the whole notion of the Borg made it damn impossible to have any decent plot lines. The Borg is, there are no alterior motives, the Borg assimilates because that is what the Borg does. The "individuals" of the Borg do their functions; that is it. Self awareness is not their function. It is not even a consideration. The collective tells you the function to preform. Hell, it even tells you when to sleep. Under the original Borg, a collapse of the net would not mean anarachy, it would mean total system shutdown (and activation of fail safe self destruct systems).

The whole system degrades down to the pathettic horror of the queen; because they needed someone to hate. That requires someone who is aware because that way we can call them evil. The Borg originally were no more evil than acts of nature; intelligent acts, but my driven by personal desires of abmitions, just by their very way of being.

[tzor]

One more point. Humans are generally still highly bigoted towards anyone non human in the original series. In the first encounter with the Romulans, one of the officers wants to throw Spock for treason because he remotely looks like a Romulan. Balance of Terror

"Lieutenant Stiles, who had family fight and die in the Earth-Romulan War, begins to suspect the Vulcan Spock of treason." And according to canon he had a reason to suspect; you really can't trust those damn Vulcans. The head of the Vulcan High Command was responsible for giving information that lead to the start of the first attack of the Earth-Romulan war against Andoria. The head of the High Command knew they were related back in 2154 over a hundred years before this epsiode.

[Lago PARANOIA]

For DS9 people:

Do you think that the series went too far sometimes with trying to 'deconstruct' the Federation in order to make it less Mary Sueish/more believable?

Personally, I think that Quark's rant against humans and the whole Maquis situation really strained credibility.

[K]

I kind of liked that the Feds got dirtied up a little. TNG had the occasional glory-seeking or warlike admiral or captain, but the idea that the Fed's utopianism and rationality is both frustrating and kind of awesome when compared to everyone else seems to hold some truth.

I thought that both DS9 and TNG held themes that utopia was something that had to be constantly fought for both on a personal and a cultural level.

[tussock]

I'm a DS9 person, in that it was always on back then and I often had nothing better to do. I thought it went too far every single time with trying to 'deconstruct' everyone's relationships in order to save on the SFX budget. I recall some nice space pew-pew as it was winding up (because , but I'd long given up caring about the show by then.

I mean, Star Trek is where you fly to a world of the week, which has exactly one problem, put down an away team, lose a redshirt, have a fist fight, solve the problem (talk about love, remember the formula for gunpowder, whatever), and try not to bring back any tribbles this time. Never ever nuke anything from orbit. Always kiss the one with boobs, passionately.

DS9 is set in a space station. It's the same world and the same fucking problem every damned week. If you kiss the one with boobs he and/or she will want to talk about it later. Fist fights will lead to hurt feelings in weeks to come. Of course it would turn into a soap opera. And then they had seven fucking seasons of increasing bureaucratic complexities. Zzzzzz