Talk:Star Trek

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


This page is terrible. Star Trek is the only work of popular fiction of its scale that makes strong pro-rationalism statements, and we're shitting on it, putting things like "ha ha, they didn't know how quickly we could have communicators in real life, it looks so outdated when you watch this show from half a century ago," instead of "Star Trek told of a possible future where humanity values science, compassion and the broadening of human knowledge, and even today is decades ahead of its time." I honestly find it hard to believe that this of all websites is so ignorant about this. Do you guys really think that Star Trek is just another TV show? Have you even watched it?

I want to clean this up and move it into the mainspace, since it's actually very relevant. What does the community think? Also if I get ignored like I usually do when I'm online I'm just going to go ahead and do it myself rather than walk away. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree. Did you know that Star Trek depicted female military officers serving in the same units as males long before the USA disbanded the Womens' Army Corps? They were referred to as 'Sir' and 'Mister,' too. For all that people complain about the pulpiness of the original series and the many Hot Green Alien Babes in it, it was actually quite progressive. Those old Space Minidress uniforms may seem silly now, but at the time (the '60s) they were actually very daring for television. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not! But it doesn't surprise me a bit. I'm rewriting it now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek Woo[edit]

I'm a fan of Trek, and it certainly was more progressive than any other show of its time, breaking many social boundaries. That said, The Next Generation at least (I haven't watched much of the Original Series) contains fairly large doses of woo not to mention pseudoscience (some of it can be excused as fiction, of course, artistic license necessary to tell a story that is set in the future-other things, not so much). For instance, the "empathic" ability of the Betazoid species, along with other frequent depictions of psychic powers, ghosts and other paranormal activities. Not very rationalist or scientific there, and with no attempt at even a pseudoscientific explanation-although that may be a blessing actually. The depiction of alien species is constrained by television and film of course, but even if we accept it from that perspective, there is a troubling amount of "every Cardassian, Ferengi, Klingon, Vulcan, etc. is the same" feel about it which amounts to near-biological determinism. The amounts of technobabble, especially in TNG on, is amazing, with "quantum" used at the same frequency as current purveyors of woo, at the same level too. I'm not trying to sound overly harsh in this. As I said, I'm a fan of the franchise as well, but it does seem we should take note of its failings a bit more along with the good stuff. Mcc1789 (talk) 2:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the above post a little churlish, because any story which uses impossible or made-up in-story effects are going to be on some level promoting woo. And honestly, in a universe in which has ridiculous things like faster-than-light engines, why is it that big of a deal for things to have psychic powers and whatnot? That said, Star Trek really, really falls down on the job sometimes when it is trying to explain actual science to justify real-world ethics. Enterprise's Dear Doctor and TNG's Pen Pals are some of the most vile stories to happen in fiction and they don't get slammed as much as they deserve. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Enterprise? The name of the ship? I seem to recall someone pitching an idea about a new series with that name. Too bad it was never made. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What I find concerning is the subtle anti-genetic engineering stance in some episodes. For example, in This episode, it is revealed that Dr. Bashir's intelligence is the result of genetical augmentation, which is forbidden in Star Fleet except for the correction of inherited illnesses. A TNG episode features a dystopian society based on genetic enhancement. Also, Khan, Augments in general, Jem'Hadar and Suliban, all of which are genetically engineered to varying degrees and the villains in their respective episodes. Admittedly, genetic engineering of humans or other intelligent species is not the same as genetically engineered food (which is portrayed as rather neutral in one TOS episode), but it's basically the same technology (I guess, I'm not a biologist). -- (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Into Darkness[edit]

Not going to remove the link, but I don't understand why people don't like the film so much. I personally thought it was much more loyal to the Trek I grew up with than Abrams' first film had been. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to raise the alarm on anything that gets written by Damon Lindelof and co. from now on. STID felt like they couldn't decide if they wanted a Wrath of Khan prequel or a copycat of the first reboot. It's not necessarily a bad movie, but its gaffes are going to be remembered for a long time.
Why the Trek films have never been able to properly blend philosophy and action properly remains an unanswered question. Now all you can wonder is how much dumbing-down can you go? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I enjoyed both of the reboot films about equally. The blend of original ST characteristics & modern action movie style mostly works out well, & they don't make the mistake a lot of remakes/reboots make of trying to displace the original. I'd probably need to watch them both again to get a proper opinion on 'Into Darkness' but it's definitely a good film. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a huge enough Trek fan to care, but I'm sure that poll turned out as it did because the film was still fresh on people's minds. I'm not a huge fan of wikis stating taste-based opinions on media as being generally accepted (and on a wiki it does come out that way, since it's not a blog or review site where you know whose opinion it is), because not everyone likes and hates the same things, as this page has proved. It's somewhat understandable for films that are largely considered awful, but not for films that garner mixed to positive reactions, unless in a jokey tone. I know that the site is not neutral, but that should be in regards to real world science, politics, and logic, not whether Michel Jackson's music sucks or not. Woodgod (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hell no, Into Darkness is a massive insult to the humanist values promoted in the early Star Trek. Not only are any and all humanist values expelled from it, the only possible female hero from The Original Series, Uhura, is turned into a ninny who exists only to create an emotional counterpoint to Spock. If it were the traditional way and the emotion vs. pure logic discussions were carried out, it would be Spock vs. McCoy arguing about who's the bigger asshole. Instead, Uhura is turned into Spock's primary antagonist as an annoying as hell girlfriend who thinks Spock almost dying is about she would feel if Spock died. Instead of the calm, collected, and professional Uhura of Star Trek, she's a hysterical and annoying bimbo. Then there's Dr. Carol Marcus...
In the pilot for the original Star Trek called "The Cage" - Captain Pike is captured by aliens who are masters of illusion. They lock him in an underground cage and start to put him through experiments built out of illusion. The first experiment is him fighting to save a damsel in distress from a monster. While Pike is trying to save the bimbo damsel in his fantasy, his highly competent and intelligent female first officer is commanding a rescue operation with the entire Enterprise crew at her command.... In Star Trek Into Darkness, Dr. Carol Marcus is a bimbo whose only behavior is moral outrage and being captured and having to be rescued.... JRCHReason (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Plus, they literally white-washed Khan. He was supposed to be from northern India. True, Ricardo Montalban was Mexican and not Indian, but at least he was brown. They couldn't have found an Indian actor to play Khan in the remake (personally I think Naveen Andrews would have been good)? This film didn't even attempt to explain the change (though a tie-in comic did). Mcc1789 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the old trope of the exotic oriental villain, as exemplified in the original Khan, is something best not revived. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's true that isn't the best idea, but neither is whitewashing. He was Indian-they should stick with that. Of course having more positive main characters who weren't white would help to offset this too.Mcc1789 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty arbitrary. Did The Wrath of Khan make any reference to him being Indian? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Not that I remember, but I think the original space seed episode did mention he's from India. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since it's a remake, I don't think the original ethnicity of characters is generally all that important. Though I'll admit that the disproportionate amount of white people among the main cast bothers me. (talk) 16:56, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
It's not a remake, actually - it's set in an alternate timeline which diverges from the "main" one somewhere in the 2200s. From what I can gather, Section 31 decided to change his skin to make sure the Historically-savvy don't recognise him (based on a Picard quote, he's as infamous as Hitler by the 2360s). I also found a more stupider explanation for the real world: the writer is 9/11 truther and wanted to make a 9/11 movie (disguised as a bad Star Trek film), but the Producer felt that having a tanned guy play the terrorist would be mistaken for Islamophobia (despite Space Seed and his own name showing he's a Sikh - they ditched mentions of his last name to un-Sikh him so it's their own damn fault). The 9/11 writing style is ALSO why the character is suddenly a terrorist, despite Space Seed explaining that Khan isn't a murderer and gains loyalty by being nice to people. So, in short: they wanted him to be a terrorist for bullshit reasons but were offended by his skin colour so whited him up.-- Forerunner (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

TNG: The Host[edit]

"Rather than simply point out she doesn't swing that way, the episode has her suggest that humanity isn't advanced enough yet to accept same-sex couples."

The actual quote from Crusher:

KAREEL: I am still Odan, and I still love you. I cannot imagine that ever changing.
CRUSHER: I am glad that you're all right.
KAREEL: Is there to be nothing more?
CRUSHER: Perhaps it is a human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited.

(Emphasis mine.)

At least to me, this does not support the information in the article. The failing mentioned is not about same-sex couples, but about a person completely changing bodies and genders. I think it's unfair to characterize this as Crusher denouncing same-sex relationships as something beyond human understanding. But removing this would be my first edit, and I wanted to see if anyone else disagreed. Trekky0623 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

| I went ahead and removed the bit about this one episode for the reasons above. If someone disagrees, and thinks that this is about same-sex couples, I'd love to hear their reasons, but I think the above excerpt demonstrates that it isn't, at least not in the way it was presented on the wiki. Trekky0623 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pen Pals[edit]

I removed that bit because (A) part of the point of the Prime Directive was that even well-intentioned interference can go disastrously wrong, and (B) they did, after some discussion, help Data's friend. --ShorinBJ (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Biological Determinism in Star Trek[edit]

At least two different Star Trek episodes use biological determinism as a plot point, Voyager's "Threshold" and Enterprise's "Dear Doctor". Should we discuss this in the science section?RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Glaring omission[edit]

Star Trek's contribution to grammar. Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek and science[edit]

There will always be some interplay between SF and prediction of 'technical gizmos' - the producers (TV, authors etc) imagining what is logical/useful/required in that particular context, extrapolating from the present and the scientists, engineers and technicians making use of the ideas suggested/investigating why 'some proposition seems odd, interesting or wrong'). Anna Livia (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The fallacy of the Prime Directive[edit]

Logically they will not be able to stop 'evil dictator with doomsday weapon that will cause a tear in the space time continuum', or save someone years of hard work by pointing out where the error in the equation is - and there is human nature/empathy/'I want one of those cool objects' as well as 'those not part of the Federation system who have not signed up to the Prime Directive' etc. Anna Livia (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Fan screed[edit]

This page seems to be have turned into more a comment on the fictional universe itself, and more to the point, a single person's option of that fiction then its relation to the world at large. It seems more appropriate for a fan site, then Rationalwiki. -- (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Typo fix time!
This page seems to be have turned into more a comment on the fictional universe itself, and more to the point, a single person's opinion of the fiction than its relation to the world at large. It seems more appropriate for a fan site, than Rationalwiki.
FIXED.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to remove that first and last comma. At least "its" is used properly. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)