Ummm, Stieve, I just went back to re-watch the advice scene to make sure:- Tori does advice Data that emotions are neither 'negative' nor 'positive' when she asks why he is avoiding the only emotion he has felt. When Data tries to explain that his research shows Anger to be a 'negative emotion' and he is avoiding it for other peoples safety she disagrees with his conclusion. Tori then goes on to tell data that emotions are neither positive or negative, only actions taken by a person should be considered such. Data even tried to argue back when Tori stated these emotions will not, in themselves, lead to hatred or malice by replying with the words: "What if it does, Councilor?"
She does later say something about negative emotions when trying to argue with Data when he's under Lore's control, and Data does snap back saying that she herself said that emotions are neither negative nor positive, but that just shows that she's not able to deal with Data level pedantics in a crisis situation, which I don't think falls under her job description.
@@JoshuaHillerup More specifically, that's Geordi, the line being "Lore is only feeding you the negative ones", Data then turns around and says "Counselor Troi herself said that emotions are neither positive or negative" with peak TNG smug in his voice, and she just kind of sits there...lifeless...impotent...Reminder the anger drove him to deactivate his ethical programming and was all for Lore's plan of exterminating all biological life. (I mean I was mostly just being a good natured jab, I would agree with Troi on principle that if Data doesn't learn to control his emotions in a sterile environment he might experience them in a crisis and get someone, maybe everyone, killed by mistake. Learning to control your emotions is part of being human. She just did it...badly xD)
“Psychics don’t belong in Star Trek” ya know, aside from the first episode, second episode, and basically every other episode of the original series, because “mind powers” was an easy special effect to do.
Honestly, I hate that psychic ability is relegated to being considered magic. While I accept that most portrayals, including in star trek, very much situate themselves on the magical end of the spectrum, there is reasonable, physically based potential for psychic or psychic like abilities. There are life forms on earth that use unusual forms of communication that we just overlook. However, even more basic, all communication comes in a few forms, electromagnetic, such as sight, or pressure waves such as hearing, and then a variety of chemical communication mechanisms. Some Sharks however have adapted to have the ability to pick up electrical signals, which is just electromagnetism of course. So it stands to reason that a realistic psychic ability would have some real hard limits, and wouldn't necessarily be portrayed as psychic. It would be great to see these concepts explored in a good scifi that tries to avoid falling into magic psychic territory.
All Vulcans are psychics. Right from the beginning. That is the defining trait of their species; their entire culture is defined by the fact that they are telepathic. Why people forget about it?
I think there's a distinction to be made between being "psychic" and "telepathic" I feel like one is hokey not really mathing math and the other is more about tapping into wavelengths that could be considered alternate ways of sentient communication.
"When Guinan shows up she always says or know something important." Of course at the time Whoopi was a Big Star. A successful standup comedian who was in the midst of a string of popular movies. She grew up a fan of TOS and contacted the producers of TNG interested in a role. She couldn't be a normal officer or crewman since she didn't want to work too much. Yet she wouldn't have taken an insignifcant role. They had to make a role she would like but that was optional to the main series plotline.
*Admiral McCoy visits the Enterprise-D* McCoy: And what is your role on the ship, ma’am? Troi: I sense bullshit. McCoy: *tearing up* Thank you for your service.
"Sulu and his partner are still in the prime of their lives." Don't you mean Kelvin of their lives? Badum-tiss. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Star Trek was never hard sci-fi. It was a TV series of moral, political, and psychological allegories. The sci-fi was just there to allow the writers to create any background/context they want for those allegories. The Star Trek writer's guide explicitly says to focus on characterization instead of science in the opener.
I'd call it more "aspirational sci-fi," especially given your description. Babylon 5, as a contemporary example, was more "hard sf" because they actually consulted JPL to design the Earthforce ships and futuristic tech in order to display a humanity in space that was somewhat more advanced, but achievably and recognizably so. (Although that's where the hard scifi ends, because from there it becomes a similarly hard look in the mirror for the human condition.)
I wonder if some of the sense of Riker's "uselessness" comes from the fact that a lot of the traditional role of a first officer/XO is about taking on the day-to-day management of the ship, to lighten the load on the captain. Vital work, but it doesn't make good TV so it tends to happen off-screen unless it impacts on the story, like in "Lower Decks", where Riker is in charge of the assessment of the Ensigns hoping to be promoted.
It's obvious this guy hasnt served. There is at least a loose recognition of how a crew works based on the USN. It is a convenient thing that day-to-day maintenance and repair must be automated because there are very few "crewmen" in TNG vs TOS but plenty of officers. Officers doing the important maintenance and repair is more a Soviet navy idea.
@@edwardslicker6126 Which guy hasn't served? You lost me on that point. Gene Roddenberry served in the US air force which I guess might explain why his space navy has such strange staffing, but I don't know enough about USAF to say. Alternatively, maybe Gene admired the Soviet navy because he was a communist all along... okay, now I'm just snarking. >:D
@@hmich176 It's much worse than that. In the first season, I don't remember where exactly, Tuvok says they only have 26 photon torpedoes. I believe it was the pilot, but I could be wrong.
Scott Billingsley ... I find that argument people make weird. I agree, they may have started out with a limited number of torpedos, but once they realized they were stuck across the galaxy, it surely would have to be one of the first things you would do is make sure to prepare yourself by gathering resources for survival and the long journey home. You'd think they would trade, scavenge, and apparently even mine resources necessary for continued operation and survival.
@@SeattleScotty there were episodes where they shoehorned in some comments about not having enough dilitheum crystals (or somethin) to make coffee. The energy required to replicate different elements/objects isn't clear but i wouldn't be surprised if torpedo's are high on the list.
Ok, as a former Service Member, I feel that the view of Riker being useless needs some clarification. Riker is the First Officer, also known as the Executive Officer (X-O). The position of the X-O is supposed to help the Captain by handling more minor issues, and taking command if the Captain is incapacitated. If you notice, he is the one gathering casualty/damage reports, filling out crew rosters and schedules, and working on getting staff together for the Captain. Yeah, anybody could be telling the Captain this info, but from the chain of command, Riker is supposed to be the one to do it. Also, as for the Animated Series being Canon, I would love to accept it as canon, but then again, they run into the devil at the center of the galaxy. Kind of destroyed that with Star Trek V.
Yeah, there's an episode where Troi and Riker have to slug through crew evaluations together (before Troi gets possessed by an evil spirit and starts rapidly ageing iirc). I felt like that gave us a hint as to what those two's actual job really was.
Riker also did a good job when Picard wasn't around. Riker could have a command of his own but decided to learn from Picard as long as he could (the actor wanted to get paid). I think this also is why he is so disappointed and acting a bit of a jerk when Jellico becomes captain of the enterprise, he likely felt he should have been the captain at that moment.
Joel Smith even if the technology is able it’s not so wise to entirely hand such tasks over to AI. Besides, the capabilities of trek IA suggests that manned ships are themselves anachronistic.
Kelvin Kirk isn't just different from Prime Kirk, he's almost the complete opposite of Prime Kirk. Apart from the effects of the destruction of Vulcan on Spock, Kirk is the character most changed in the new timeline. He went from a young studious prodigy with the extensive support of a loving father to a kid raised in part by a verbally abusive uncle. He became rebellious and reckless in ways that Prime Kirk never was at that age, and it's a tribute to his character that he still grew into being a good leader eventually. That's part of why I love the differences between the Kelvin and Prime timelines. In the Prime timeline a 25 year old cadet would never be a captain, and certainly never of the Enterprise. Kelvin Starfleet was so gutted of personnel after the Battle of Vulcan that this was their best choice, which is amazing to consider. It doesn't get the attention it deserves, but Kelvin Starfleet is in almost complete collapse after the events of the first move. This timeline is the story of characters staggering through apocalyptic events and not dealing very well with the trauma of the situation. It's the deconstruction of everything Roddenberry dreamed of the future being when he designed the setting of Star Trek, and it's fascinating.
Though I would have said Insurrection was the movie deconstruction of everything he dreamed of for the future. I mean the lesson of the movie and its narrative is that Technology is ultimately a harmful force. That it should be rejected because it taints humanity and makes it forget what is actually important in life. That alone is contrary to Trek's baseline (least as I ever picked it up on). Where it was a Utopia because of technology bettering everyone's lives. Where they were freed from hardship in order to truly explore what humanity was in the best of ways. Still, you're not wrong about the Kirk differences. I always felt like though that the Kirk differences weren't purposeful though. Like Kelvin Kirk is the amalgamation of everything Pop Culture thinks Captain Kirk is. A cowboy, reckless action hero, womanizer who is ploughing a different girl every week, etc. Which is funny because that's basically the complete opposite of The Original Series Kirk where he's very by the book. He is mentioned having turned down and ignored Yeoman Rand's attempts to seduce him. And he tries to think and talk his way out of solutions far more than just go around punching and blasting.
One thing about Guinan I always wanted to know was why the hell was Q afraid of her? This all powerful being, cowering behind Picard when he sees Guinan. Hinted at, never explained. Something that bothered me in Star Trek Generations was if Picard could use the Nexus to travel back in time, why didnt he go back to when they first rescued Soren and throw him in the brig before he destroyed stars. Or even a day or two before that, to send a transmission to his brother to avoid the fire?
Guinan obviously has some dirt on Q. It's not what she could do, but what she knows about him that he's afraid of. Perhaps his species has a weakness, like kryptonite with Superman?
Chekhov’s brother, Pieter was a figment if his own imagination, put there by the entity in the Day of the Dove episode, supposedly murdered by the Klingons, so Chekhov could hate Kang and his crew. Sulu remarks that Chekhov was an only child
Forgot to mention that when Picard isn't there, Riker is usually the more competent of the characters on the show. He inputs complex command codes into the computer blind while explaining the concepts of the computer core to a Ferengi invader. he devised an ingenious tactical solution while at Starfleet Academy which was noted in his record. He developed a tactic that allowed his ship at the time, the Potemkin, to hide from an enemy - Data estimated that he used traditional tactics in battle only 21% of the time, preferring unorthodox methods that would make it hard for his enemies to predict. It was Riker's plan that allowed them to save Picard from the Borg. His quick thinking allowed them to destroy the Duras sister's Bird of Prey, saving them from complete destruction. His unwilling but brilliant prosecution of Data as a machine, not a man, devastated both Picard's planned defense and Picard himself at how effective it was. He saw through Sela's deception in Unification. He devised a solution that destroyed the attacking Son'a ships and saved the Enterprise. Starfleet was so desperate to give him a command they were practically throwing ships at him for years - I doubt they made a habit of doing that with incompetent officers. Riker was one of the more able and competent command staff, I'm really unsure as to how anyone can doubt that. There is a point to be made about picking on Troi over any male member of staff, but Riker is not a good pick for the argument.
For the record, Troi said exactly what you say she should have said~ From the episode in question: Counselor Deanna Troi: I'm curious. Why're you ignoring the one emotion you've already experienced? Why aren't you trying to make yourself angry again? Lt. Cmdr. Data: Anger is a negative emotion. I wanted to concentrate on something more positive. Counselor Deanna Troi: Data - feelings aren't positive and negative. They simply exist. It's what we do with those feelings that becomes good or bad.
Except telepathy is not necessary magic. Empaths exist. To not have empathy is a mental illness known as anti social personality disorder, or better know colloquially as psychopathy. If our thoughts are nothing but chemical and electrical signals, the idea of having a sensitivity to changes in those signals isn't exactly far fetched.
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 A lot of people have used "the force" as a reason for Star Trek being better than Star Wars because Star Trek is grounded more on reality. They will conveniently forget all the elements with Q, Troi and even Vulcan mind melds. It's just a way to try to justify why what they like is better than the other. That's all.
The main reason Riker sometimes seems useless is that he has no other job besides being the First Officer--his job was often nothing more that to make it so whenever Picard ordered him to make it so. In contrast, in TOS, Spock was both the First Officer and the Science Officer, so he had a function beyond simply repeating/relaying the Captain's orders.
William T. Riker prevented a war with the Klingons in "A Matter of Honor"; foiled an assassination attempt in "The Vengeance Factor"; defeated the Borg as Captain of the Enterprise in "The Best of Both Worlds" parts I and II; broke orders and saved the Enterprise in "The Pegasus" and saved the day in Star Trek: Insurrection. No, he is far from useless.
Not to mention that we actually see Riker do the job of an Executive Officer of a ship by doing crew evaluations and determining crew discipline and crew promotions. the TNG Episode "Lower Decks" is one such example that I can think of off the top of my head. As far as saving the ship goes, there was also his advice in "Cause and Effect" that got them out of that fatal temporal loop with the USS Bozeman. If we want to talk about a REALLY useless character: Tasha Yar and then Worf as Chief of Security. Worf didn't see his true potential come out until DS9. In TNG, they both had token dialogue and Worf was only originally intended to be "yesterday's enemies are today's friends" concept (like Rodenberry did with Pavel Chekov in TOS). Worf was just window dressing to begin with.
Data's scolding of Warf on his execution of his roll as first officer explains the lack of opinions voiced by Riker. The first officer isn't supposed to have his own (public) opinion.
You're spot on about Riker heading the away team. There had been complaints about Kirk putting himself in unnecessary danger. So I read that they didn't want to do the same with Picard
Yeah, I've heard those reports since the 80s. Initially I bought into the idea, but later I reasoned my way to an opposite conclusion. The XO could do a good job of getting the ship home, and if you read about the XO's role in Star Trek, a key part of the job is looking after the crew. The captain on the other hand has to deal with other species and must make quick, good decisions in times of danger; he must be a diplomat and a commander. Thus, the captain by definition must have many of the skills needed to lead an away team, but the XO needn't have. The whole thing seems to fit in with my observation that shows made for people who fought in wars from WW2 to Vietnam have a much clearer understanding of how to handle danger, but later shows are often dominated by relatively shallow feelings. Han shot first.
I wanna watch the holodeck version of Deadpool. You know that even in observation mode he's going to stop in the middle of a fight, walk over to you, and have you hold one of his weapons for a second.
Also Quark won't hesitate to "unintentionally" double cross a criminal to Odo if the criminal hurts his profits, and the Bajorans tolerate Quark because he smuggled food for them during the occupation.
Quark is such an interesting and insightful character. His speech to Nogg about 'HumAAns' and how wonderful they are as long as their bellies are full and their replicators are working is perfection. So much hate is sent his way but it really flips the other side to show how an alien would see up. And in that how actually forgiving he is as a character.
On the "Magical Negro" trope: I can see this as an extrapolation of the experience of a lot of white children being raised by black nannies. Having seen harder times, there was worldly experience and advice for them to share. There was an expression, if someone was wise, it was said of him, "He must have a bit of mammy's milk in him".
Ohhhhhh, that's a much nicer thought than I had. I grew up reading books in Britain where the magically insightful character was likely to be the protagonist's cousin's grandma. I thought Hollywood pushed that role off to Black and Native people to appease that peculiarly American set of white religious people who would be furious if they saw a white mystic.
pointing out Guinen as the "magical negro trope" reminds me of someone describing Uruha as "Even in the future, the best job a black lady can get is answering the space telephone" Which, like in retrospect, yeah, ok. But at the time it really was considered positive representation. Uhura was a full member of the bridge crew, and certainly more important than that blonde Yeoman. MLK was such a huge fan of the character he convinced Uruha's actress not to quit the show.
Quark for me is arguably one of my favourite characters in the entire franchise. Much like Eugene from The Walking Dead, I think many people don't like him because he reminds us that humans, particularly in nations like the UK and US, are driven by wealth, desire and personal survival. I think, he's a tremendous mirror for humanity and a deeply complex and rich character as a result. In fact, nudge nudge, like your Gul Dukat video, I think maybe Quark could be worth a full Trek Actually on reasons stated and more?
I always loved Quark. I feel like his character arc can best be described as an allegory for how an individual can be molded by their own toxic societal norms and expectations, but when encountered with a "better" worldview, in this instance the inclusiveness and optimism, and even the morality of humans/star fleet, that the individual can shrug off all the baggage of their society to become a better individual over all.
I never felt that Guinan was "magical" at all. There were far more "magical" characters who were not cast as a black woman. Q, for instance could master time, space and matter. That immortal man who married a human woman and ended up committing genocide in "a blink of an eye" (I could go on, but it is a long list). I just feel she is from a long-lived race of beings who were inter-stellar travelers. Because of her expanded experience as well as her relative age (she has many adult children), she is at a place in her life where an individual can step back to see a fuller picture. Being a sexagenarian (it sounds more fun than it really is) myself, I recognize where she is in her life.
A 'magical negro' is actually a trope in American literature, television, and film. It's a wise African American supporting character that the white main characters will go to for advice. Many African American artists feel like it's a stereotype, like the 'noble savage' Native American character. That being said, your perspective made me look at Guinan very differently. Since she doesn't appear older, I never thought about her being someone that others on the ship would go to because of her experiences and that is what gives her advice weight. I'd never looked at her that way before. Thank you for that!
Kai Winn played today by Donald Trump Female Founder played by Mitch McConnell? mixing it up a bit: Weyone played by Sarah Huckabee Sanders Dukat played by Bill Barr Damar plated by Jared Kushkush with stand in by Steven Miller Pah-Wraith played herself by Kellyann Conway
Star Trek could be mistaken for “hard sci-fi” in the sense that there’s explanations for most prominent tech, there’s detailed technical manuals full of compelling fake tech, and a lot of the show revolves around technology. That said, it’s obviously not hard sci-fi. Personally, I would borrow a term from fantasy and call it “high” sci-fi, while something like The Expanse would be “low” sci-fi, with little emphasis on technology and a lot more focus on drama.
Just discovered this channel... absolutely loving it! You walk the perfect line between an unbiased exploration of themes and your own personal feelings, always making it very clear which observations are personal preference and which ones are simply logical conclusions. You explore differing viewpoints other than your own, and you even concede to others when presented with a strong counter-argument. I'm also glad to see you're not one of these UA-camrs who avoids throwing in a little political humor out of worry that someone will be offended. A+ content right here, folks!
It occurred to me listening to the bit about Troi and Guinan (I had seen the original video) that many of Guinan's scenes, at least initially, may have been intended to be Troi. After all, Whoopi Goldberg lobbied the producers for a part, and they likely created one for her rather than cast her in an existing role. In that sense, Troi's character and usefulness may have been sabotaged by the introduction of Guinan.
The best thing about Quark is how his changes come about as a result of Starfleet and his friends on the station. There are a few scenes where he comments on being surrounded by ethics and compassion for so many years that they have warped his mind, seeing them as negative changes he can't help against, while those around him see such changes as good. Sometimes it is unclear if him doing something good is due to knowing its wrong, or because he doesn't want to deal with the consequences. Like when he sold weapons the final straw to stop was the high demanded death count, but up to that point he was already questioning his actions due to Starfleet, especially Dax refusing to have anything to do with him.
Prime Kirk grew up with having George Kirk as a father, a duty-driven man who sacrificed his life to save the crew along with his wife and newborn child in the Kelvin timeline. Kelvin Kirk grew up with the douchenozzle who, presumably, cared more about his classic car than his stepson. Kelvin Kirk did not have a positive role model like Prime Kirk did, until Captain Pike came along and took Kirk under his wing. For me, this explains a lot of the differences between the two.
You mention that The Cage wasn't available until the 1980s, but I and a few more people saw it back in the early 1970s. I was a student at THE Ohio State University and Gene Roddenberry was a featured speaker at an on-campus event. He screened The Cage, gave a speech about his career and how he developed Star Trek and then had a question-and-answer session. I got lucky, twice. I interviewed him and Majel Barrett before the show for our student newspaper. Later, during the show I worked as a security guard for the event. The event was a logistical nightmare. OSU completely underestimated the popularity of Star Trek and had first come first served at the event ticket sales. Several thousand people showed up for an auditorium that seated less than five hundred. And it started raining. After the show Roddenberry felt sorry for us poor security guards, and the ordeal of handling the angry crowd, and took us all out for drinks with him and his wife. He bought me my very first Martini! He talked a little about his time in WWII and his career with the LAPD. He talked about writing for Dragnet and about plans for future shows like Genesis II. I've heard some people describe Gene as testy or hard to work with. That's not the guy I met. He was funny, outgoing, and generous. I hadn't really been a Star Trek fan up to that point, but he won me over.
I think that "right wing" and "left wing" are moving targets as right and left (politically and practically) are relative to your perspective. For instance, looking from the outside into US politics the Democratic party would be considered centrist or right of centre and the Republican party is very right far right. I will say that I am from a country with free universal health care and my country has as multi-party democracy instead of the two party state of the US. To my point, if we make the assumption that most Star Trek fans speak English and the USA has the largest English speaking population, I can would say that a very large portion of fans are not liberals from my point of view.
Not only your points, Even as a child, I always saw Trek as very Moderate, by U.S. standards. There are elements to Federation society that are from many facets of the ideological spectrum. As I approach 50, I still find new ways of looking at the stories that help broaden my view of the world.
I agree. Also, I don't have to love everything in a show to be able to enjoy it. If I can overlook plot holes, I can also understand a little bit of pandering, if it doesn't destroy the narrative. I loved VOY because I used to watch with my mother. We now watch Discovery and I love it.
Star Trek is literally Fully Automated Gay Space Communism. It doesn't get more lefty than that. They could use some work on their justice system though. It's pretty draconian at times. Section 31 is a little faschy too, but that just shows the need for continuous revolution.
A Star Trek anthology-style show would be awesome, each episode focusing on a different ship and crew and the adventures they have where there's no guarantee that the crew of the week would survive their encounter.
I've always thought of the holodeck as consisting of lots of "bubbles" surrounding the users along with some treadmills to keep them from hitting the walls. Otherwise, how could people wander off from each other in a virtual environment larger than the holodeck? The holodeck projects what the environment should be in a bubble around each user instead of projecting on the walls or whatever. So in our High Fidelity holoprogram, you could have the option of each user seeing John Cusack stare at them alone, like modern 3D movies where everyone sees the same 3D perspective.
Well, I never read any technical manuals, but in an early episode of TNG it's stated that the computer guides you away from the walls, essentially in virtual circles. Although, the physical holodeck (when turned off) always seemed to look too small to truly accomplish this. On a related note, unless my memory has failed me, the same episode also stated that the holodeck functions similar to a replicator (which in turn functions much like a transporter, limited by the size or complexity of the "patterns" that can store). So it actually creates physical objects, not holographic ones, and can alter them at will. And, since the objects can only exist inside the holodeck, then we can assume that it isn't just replicating matter and letting it be, but it's constantly replicating and re-replicating everything (expect physical items/people brought in from outside). This explains how complex things, such as people, can be replicated without actually being real. The computer is simply replicating only what is needed for them to appear real and through constant replication and dematerialization they become interactive. Think of it as a large scale 3d printer that builds everything pixel by pixel, except it ALSO acts like a old school CRT/Television where each pixel must constantly be "redrawn" otherwise it will fade out of existence. The above supposition in to the inner workings of the Holodeck may help to explain why sometimes things can briefly leave the holodeck. Snow/water is fairly simple and may "persist" longer. The same goes for the paper with the drawing of the ship. Although, bad, or at least inconsistent, writing is ultimately to blame. Speaking of bad writing, any star trek fan should go read (or listen to, as i did) Redshirts by John Scalzi. His writing isn't bad.
_Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most ... human._ -- Adm. James T. Kirk _I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy._ -- Capt. James T. Kirk In the cases of _Star Trek II_ and _Star Trek VI,_ Kirk is hit where he lives, first with Spock and later with the fallout from a son he barely gets to know. _Star Trek III_ and _IV_ are more involved with getting back what was lost (Spock) and reestablishing that relationship ... along with saving Earth, of course (minor detail!). With TWoK and TUC, we get past the veneer of Kirk and into his primal workings, as you observe, and that's what makes those two the most compelling of all the _Star Trek_ movies.
@JohnnyTheWolf I suspect part of Kirk's reaction is in that he has been about his career for so long that when he's confronted with the fact that he's had no LIFE apart from his career, then having that chance of a life outside of Starfleet stripped away from him ... yeah, some people might get pretty bitter, even irrationally so. It may not be the best explanation, but I think it fits to a degree.
@JohnnyTheWolf Unlike Steve Shives, I think THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY is a lousy movie, with a lot of dumbness in it, including the unbridled racism--one of the most offensive and incredibly stupid part in it to me is after the dinner party when the crew makes comments about how they smell and how disgusting their eating habits are or something--if the writers/producers wanted to make a point, then there should have been a corresponding scene in which the Klingons are back on the Bird of Prey talking about how disgusting and how smelly the humans are!!!!! And then Uhura doesn't know Klingon? Are you fucking kidding me? She's a high-ranking officer in Communications, for cryin' out loud!!!! And quoting Shakespeare in the "original Klingon." Again, give me a fucking break!!!!! And why would the conspiracy against Kirk want to hand him over to the Klingons? If he (KIrk) hates them so much, then they should have wanted to bring him INTO the conspiracy. Protected him. And THAT would have been an interesting movie--a real journey for James Tiberias Kirk and the rest of the crew as they explored their true feelings about "other races."
I find it a bid revelation-y how lack of racial consciousness can influence one's perception. I take me as an example. When i grew up and watched TNG (and i come from a racially "monolithic" society) i never saw Guinan as the magical negro.....come to thing of it, i didn't see her as a "negro" at all. I always thought of her as an Elaurian (or however you spell her species). I never saw Worf as a negro either. To me, he was always a Klingon. The only major character in TNG that was "racially" defined to me, was Geordi. And he was certainly not the magical one...... Even now, in my middle age, it would never have occurred to me to thing of Guinan in any other way. I guess culture and bringing does make a lot of difference. As to Quark, i must agree with you wholeheartedly. He is among my favorite DS9 charcters and probably Trek characters in general. I think, above all, what DS9 did better then any other Trek show before it, or after, was the way it portrayed all the cultures and species in that universe. What could easily be dumbed down to the weekly comic relief species in TNG (think Worf i.e.) like the Ferengi, was fleshed out into a complex culture. Yes, we can argue about its ethical virtues from the moral high ground of today's values, but there is no doubt there was more to them then just greed. Both as individuals, and as a species, Ferengis were portrayed as a complex individuals with rich history and culture. Klingons in TNG fared a bit better (except for poor Worf), having enough episodes that had Klingon politics as their focal points, however DS9 raised that to the next level, even giving individual Klingon characters more then just being the dumb barbarian brutes. Worf of course, benefited the most, having been turned from the clumsy naive giant kid on the playground that everybody made fun off, into a a multi layered individual, with his own story arcs and motivations.
I don't know about it being impossible to like Trek and be right wing at the same time. I am a lefty and I love Firefly. I recognize that it's super libertarian in form and message, but I can kinda treat that as part of the spectacle.
I feel like you can read Firefly as left-libertarian, though. It is firmly and prominently anticorporation, for one thing. Mostly it's just generically anti-authoritarian, which has every place on the left.
A fans political leanings has nothing to do with the media they consume. I served in the Army for 8 years and I knew many soldiers who loved Star Trek and were right of center. What the person who wrote that comment is that not every person is so politically focused that they allow there politics to dictate what they can and can't do. There are many people, myself included, that compartmentalize every aspect of there life and are able to enjoy life to the fullest.
I find that people are are super obsessed in projecting their beliefs onto others at all times, regardless of their stances, usually cannot understand that others aren't necessarily that way. People also forget that the world in which we live has real consequences that affect people's lives, whereas in fiction we aren't so constrained. I question what the "point" people might be missing is, given that the stated intent of most of the people behind Trek is to make sure everyone can take away something different and personal to them.
If a left winger and a right winger appeared in star trek, the right winger would be the bad guy. Right wingers are obtuse and lack thinking skills, so i can see how they could still enjoy the flashing lights and explosions. also, two white men are in charge during all of TNG. so maybe it's not as leftist or egalitarian in its execution as people think.
Totally, disagree with the "magical" slight of Guinan & race element of the statement. I would say its a "Magical Bartender" moment when she arrives which is NO different than when Woody shows up on Cheers & does the same thing. Something the other bartender could not do because he was self centered.
I think that to some extent Riker, and Troi share the same issue as characters in that major parts of their role on the crew are just implied rather than shown in the series. In Riker's case, he's heavily implied to handle much of the ship's routine administrative duties while Troi is often implied to spend much of her time functioning as a liaison between the ship's starfleet and civilian populations, both important roles within the world of the series but difficult to depict with regularity on screen.
In retrospect... Why was a super-strong android allowed on a starship? His potential to cause damage was enormous! Nobody sufficiently understood how he functioned enough to determine whether he could be compromised. And he went rogue countless times!
He graduated from the academy just like everyone else. Further, Vulcan's and Klingons are way stronger than humans but they too are allowed on Starfleet vessels. Really I think this just speaks to the egalitarian ideal that Starfleet aims towards.
I have been saying for years a great idea for star trek would be a version of star trek wherethere isnt always a happy ending. One where we explore the scarey creepy side of space exploration. Maybe something like THE X FILES meets THE TWILIGHT ZONE in space. Episodes that would not be set on just one hero ship but mutiple ships and even large and small space stations and even outposts.
I always saw Quark as an Archy Bunker type character. He has a lot of flaws. His father was a failure in business, his mother and brother don't have character traits that are consistent with his society's belief. His life caused him to over compenate for his family flaws. However, he's allowed to softened up by the people around him, and by the end of the series, although is still talks about looking out for himself, he does act to the benefit of his friends and others at the expense of profit.
I love the nerdy holodeck question. Yes the actor follows you when it breaks the 4th wall. In a group it follows the person who initiated the program. Just a thought :)
as a conservative, and a Star Trek Fan I would like to respond to the question regarding Trump supporters and Trek. First, I would like to point out that I am not conflating being a Trump supporter with being a conservative. I am a conservative because I believe in the abilities of individuals to come together and over come challenges on a societal and cultural level out of choice, not as a matter of law. And that is what appeals to me about Star Trek. We never see any indication that hate speech have been outlawed in the Federation, but rather there is no need to have laws regarding the moderation of the action of speech because as a society people have come together to embrace and accept differences. Not because the government passed a law saying declared statements of X, Y, and Z type are illegal for reasons of being damaging and/or dangerous. Now I mentioned being a conservative but not a Trump Supporter. I disagree with Trump on about about 97% of everything he has said and done, but I do still consider myself a conservative. I absolutely 100% with out question support same-sex marriage, I think the immigration system in this country or horribly convoluted and screwed up to the point that the criminals who want to exploit it have about 150 ways to do so while the people who actually want to come here can't tell what they are supposed to do and that the entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up to address these problems but I wholeheartedly disagree with setting up holding camps with some sort of vague idea of "Sort it out later". I think giving blanket tax breaks to companies and CEO on some kind of blind hope that they will take the money and reinvest in the community/their company is just a signed invitation to be abused and taken advantage of and that such tax breaks should come in response to such investments, not in hope of them. But to come back to the question of being a conservative and a Star Trek Fan, as I said before: it inspires me to work to build a future where we has individuals have grown enough to work to over come societal level problems by choice, not government mandate. Do not confuse that with being a Trump Supporter.
I always thought star trek could be appreciated by conservatives as when it tackles issues it's always broad banner examples such as "racism is bad" "men and women are equal". A conservative can look at the future in star trek and feel pride as laws in place have fixed surface issues. You never see an episode in which geordi is asked "but where are you from really".
Except societal level problems in Trek have largely been solved via post-scarcity socialist policies, which is what allows the choice you admire so much in play in the show. Federation citizens can choose how to excel and contribute in a way that best suits them specifically because they don't have to worry about starving to death or losing their home or going bankrupt from medical expenses. It's an inherently anti-conservative franchise, particularly TOS and TNG.
I've always seen Quark as a sort of Worf-like character- not in the sense that they share the same values of course, but in the sense that they both go to great lengths to keep their cultural customs in exile, while struggling with balancing the "hu-mon" values they come to display.
I like the question about trump supporters. I would call myself more conservative leaning then you, but I could not bring my self to support Trump. And I'd say most of the reasons he lost my vote was because of the values of Star Trek I hold. I couldn't elect Harry Mudd or Biff Tannen President. When watching that part of your video I thought who on Star Trek most closely encapsulates my politics, and Quark came to mind. Later in the video when you talk about Quark it made me laugh. I'm not quite as Quark like as I originally thought. Although I think the conversation with Quark and Garak about root beer sums up the federation well. I like Quark because it shows that not everyone in the ST universe is a knight in shining armor. And its ok to like the people who can do the right thing even if it is a bit self serving. I think that makes the universe more real. On another point, I'd like to see you do a video about what you enjoy about the JJ movies. I'm not a fan of them. I feel like their stories are weak and rushed. I don't hate them, so I would love to hear your opinions on them and maybe I'd see a side of them I haven't seen before. Thanks for all the Trek videos.
Sounds to me like you are an actual fiscal conservative of the type that was more than willing to compromise and govern, as opposed to a religious-right leaning, personality-cult, obstructionist "OWN TEH LIBZ" conservative, and are therefore sane.
One of the reasons Guinan never had any adventures and was never the protagonist of the A or B stories is that Whoopi Goldberg was contractually limited. When she first appeared as Guinan, she had a very active movie career and couldn’t be tied up shooting for more than a day or sometimes less. Notice that she normally only shows up on one set and often only for one scene. That way they could shoot all her stuff in one setup. Even Guinan’s hat served the purpose of quickly hiding whatever hairstyle Whoopi might be wearing for whatever film she was on. She had to be written as she was (a catalyst rather than a participant) because the producers might have to drop her scene at the last minute and assign her advice to a different character. Sometimes practical circumstances can have unintended consequences. Had Guinan been a full-fledged recurring character, she might have received better development.
Hi Steve, re your questions just before 13:30 (1.would a holodeck theatrical character who breaks the fourth wall appear to follow you?; 2.what if there were multiple spectators?). In answer to 2: I think the holodeck could (if so programmed) direct light rays to each spectator's eyes so that every one of them would each perceive that theatrical character to be addressing them personally, at one and the same time. In answer to 1: that presumably would depend on whether the holodeck program was set to project the scene and characters relative to that spectator viewpoint, or to project with a fixed reference frame - such that a spectator who moved relative to that frame would see different perspectives. In theory, it could be set differently for multiple spectators at one and the same time, each seeing only their 'own' custom-projected reality (and each other). However, that could be wildly inconsistent and confusing (likely inducing vertigo, possibly nausea!) - since shifting one's gaze, turning one's head, or moving bodily - while immersed in a 'self-relative' custom projection - would result in that scene shifting wildly around and/or through the other real human spectators. Ideally, multi-user programs would maintain a realtime perceptual environment consistent for each same-time participant.. within reason. (Hacking holodeck settings to present individually-inconsistent projections could be a temptation for mischievous or malicious cadets.. ;O )
In STAR TREK GENERATIONS I remember Captain Kirk asking who was at the helm of the Enterprise B and she said her name DEMORA SULU. Kirk's response was "It wouldn't be the Enterprise without a Sulu at the helm."
Riker's primary function was to effectively and efficiently execute Picard's commands. If Picard gave an order that would have everyone working double shifts -- Riker was the face who would get the job done, organize the shifts, manage the personalities, and step in to enforce when necessary, so Picard could focus on making big decisions. The TNG Enterprise is clearly a VERY well-run ship. Stands to reason then that Riker is excellent at his job. Furthermore, Riker is very well-liked. I imagine on most Federation ships, the 1st Officer is despised as the executor of the Captain's demanding will. Additionally, Riker can step up and take command effectively, is awesome on away missions, is an excellent pilot, and is nearly on Worf's level at hand-to-hand combat. Riker definitely doesn't do much when we see him on the bridge, but when everything else is running smoothly, it's important to remember that Riker is a BIG reason why.
Going off of the issue with Troi being psychic and such, let us not forget another psychic race that features very heavily in Star Trek; the Vulcans. The mind meld is a form of touch-based telepathy, strong enough even that it can store the user's mind, soul, or whatever a katra is supposed to be in the mind of another being. It's not even limited to physical contact; Spock sensed the coming of V'Ger from a significant distance in TMP. Some of the psychics mentioned in the video (humans with a penchant for ESP, for example) can be sort of chalked up to Early-Instalment Weirdness since they don't seem to show up again. But the Vulcans and their mind meld? Extremely well established, throughout the entirety of Star Trek.
At one of the TNG conventions, Frakes says he only had one job on the bridge, and there are only so many ways you can say "Red Alert." Or something like that.
You observed/felt that Kirk's development as a character occurred in Star Trek (2): The Wrath of Kahn and in Star Trek (6): The Undiscovered Country. Without the events which had taken place in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the growth Star Trek (6): The Undiscovered Country wouldn't have been a factor. Learning that he had an {adult} son and losing him shortly there after certainly shaped who he was at the beginning of Star Trek VI.
About the “Cognitive dissonance“ of being a conservative trekkie: My entire immediate family loves Star Trek, And we are very conservative Catholics. In fact, I’m an officer on the apologetics team at my Church in college, and five out of seven of us are huge trekkies as well as very conservative. Most of us think Trump is an embarrassment, but we don’t think he’s the spawn of Satan. You can enjoy the sci-fi, characters, comedy, philosophical musings, etc. without agreeing with all of the social commentary, Which can still be intriguing even if one doesn’t always agree with it. But there’s plenty in Star Trek that works quite comfortably with Catholic moral and social teaching.
Yes there are people that can in the same breath believe in a talking snake and the worst case of genetic inbreeding nature has ever seen and then turn around and use science and logic in provable ways to better humanity. We are truly a unique species.
April was canonized in Discovery, Saru has the computer create a program to evaluate his performance as captain by comparing it to the most decorated commanders in Starfleet history including Archer, April, and Pike
April, along with key elements of the plot of The Cage, were canonized in The Menagerie. I was a little bit surprised Steve forgot that, but he remembers a lot of stuff I've forgotten and he has more stuff to remember anyway. I stopped watching most all TV and films before the first Star Trek Kelvin film.
Steve, I really get why you probably don't want to do the research but I would love to watch your long form take on right wing trek fans and how they interpret the show so differently. Personally I find two categories of fan particularly interesting, those that seem to project themselves onto characters like Gul Dukat and those that seem to be way too interested in military details. Maybe I'm misreading that second group entirely, either way you're quickly becoming my favorite Trek critic/analyst (or however you'd prefer to put it) and I'd love to know your thoughts on the subject.
From what I know of the conservative mentality, they probably interpret Gul Dukat as a representation of liberals. Their rhetoric usually portrays any kind of progressive advocacy as an attack on their rights, as backwards as that is. You shouldn't really give the rank-and-file conservative public too much credit for their skills at critical thinking.
Im sure it's more complicated than this but I think a big part of it is that no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story. Everyone thinks they're the hero, particularly people who are not terribly introspective as it is. Our Trumpy-Trekkie can watch Star Trek without relating any of the moral messages back to themselves and their own choices, even if/when they condemn the bad guys for committing the exact same bad acts Trumpy-Trekkie engages in every day (i.e. racism, fascism, misogyny, general intolerance, etc.). If they think of how their behavior compares to the Trek villain at all, they justify their own actions by insisting it's different when they do it because "I don't mean any harm" or "I only do that to people who deserve it". This, is in contrast to how they view the Trek villain, who clearly both intended to be evil and was harming those who did not "deserve it" in the mind of Trumpy-Trekkie. Basically it all comes down to the fact that almost everyone in the world truly, deeply believes they are a good person, even when they objectively are not. Probably even Hitler thought he was a good person. He probably justified his actions by saying he was restoring honor or glory to his people and/or other grosser reasons. Humans are just really great at self-delusion.
Politics is Poison, anyone who tries and infect another with their politics is Evil. But 99.9% of humans cannot grasp this let alone apply it to life so we will enter another Dark Age soon. But no one will blame themselves.................
I’ve never actually considered psychic powers as fantasy, but more on the speculative end of SF. Like, it’s never really shown as being powered by mana, incantations, or even some mystic other dimension. It’s always powered purely from an individual and has more to do with the unknown aspects of consciousness/subconscious and perception than pure wish fulfillment like magic is.
Just to clarify, Riker has 3 main jobs on the Enterprise. one of Rikers main jobs while on the ship is setting up the duty rosters, basically making the day to day schedules of the crew. This is, however, a very boring thing to see on screen so we dont see it unless it's important to the plot. Another of his main duties would be to be in command on the bridge while Picard is taking care of daily needs, like recreation, eating and sleeping. Lastly, as stated in the video, he leads most away teams.
It might be functionally redundant, but its far from useless to have an active on deck back up for a ship captain, who is probably the most important staff member outside of a chief engineer. Even modern ships do this. And it makes sense for Riker to be on stand by, if just to learn actively from the captains example. Troi is only on deck for whenever her power actually works or she might potentially be allowed to say something useful. One does not necessarily need a counselor on deck otherwise. She's not a diplomat or negotiator outside of her context. Troi easily could have been background.
The animated season is where Kirk's eventual canonical middle name, Tiberius, originated. He was James J. Kirk in the second pilot and only had middle initial T. in TOS production run.
Going a bit further into Riker's role on the Enterprise, he's often seen filling the same role as a modern navy XO, being more hands on with regard to executing the captain's orders and managing the finer details of running the ship, like ship readiness, personnel matters (like crew evaluations) and whatnot. On a ship as big as the Enterprise-D, having a dedicated First Officer (XO) would be quite essential to keeping the captain from being bogged down in the minutiae of command.
The only problem I have with Quark's capitalism is that it's mostly played for laughs, which perhaps downplays the ruthlessness of capitalism. The episode where he finds himself being drawn into an arms deal that will result in mass murder is essentially the show lampshading this issue. The character cannot be both a comic relief character and someone who profits from mass murder, so we are shown that there are limits to what Quark will do for profit.
To make a quibble on the second response of Star Trek being "hard" sci fi, that is just not even remotely true. Star Trek has always played fast and loose with it's science fiction, and many times hand waves away when science actually explains how those technologies would work (the Heisenberg compensator for the transporters was their hand wave to explain the improbability factor of transporters, as an example). Most things that happen in Star Trek are improbable if not down right impossible to perform, and while many fans will denote the tried and true "we just aren't advanced enough" excuse, science itself has progressed fairly far to have a decent understanding of how FTL, transporters, and many other wondrous things in the Star Trek ideology would work. And on the subject of continuity, this one always baffles me that fans get so riled up over it, despite even Star Trek, since its inception, has played fast and loose with its continuity to the point of retconning their very own continuity constantly throughout TOS, TNG and DS9. It also baffles me that people are upset that "things look different" is some how an excuse to say that TOS era series events don't use gumball buttons and cheap cardboard paneling instead of trying to keep the ship "technologically" updated to be equal to if not superior than a modern PC and our phones, which seems to be the biggest quibbles I note about Kelvin hate or even reboots of things like Discovery.
David Evans Yeah, the term “hard sci-fi “ gets abused in visual media all the time. As a reader I have a pretty good grasp on the concept and nothing ever recorded to film or video card has come close! The current darling of the TV sci-fi fandom is The Expanse and all the chatter seems to be about how we FINALLY have a realistic hard sci-fi show.... Ignoring the fact the the main drivers of the plots for show and books are basically trek level magic, a propulsion system that breaks physics exactly as badly as treks warp drive and an alien molecule that is beyond Harry Potter levels of magic. Hard sci-fi bases it’s central premise and the McGuffins driving the plot soundly within known possibly.
@@DrewLSsix I am not sure I would say nothing. 2001 A Space Odyssey was decently representative, though they still cut some corners. The follow up, of course, was definitely way more Hollywood.
Star Trek is having so many nearly-god characters that I can't imagine how anyone is thinking it is hard scifi. Even TOS has some Gods in it, before TNG came up with the Q-stuff. I can't imagine something more fantasy than Gods.
First officer or executive officer duties are dealing with the staff functions: intelligence, logistics, maintenance; engineering, personnel, etc and being able to advise the commander about the status of those elements so that the commander can make informed decisions, vis a vis, ships capability of completing assigned missions. It’s a boring, thankless but critical job that allows the commander to “command” instead of getting personally involved in the day to day decisions of actually running the ship
(3) Steve I think if CBS wanted to give you a job, the best opportunity would be for you to host fan-reaction show sort of like how Chris Hardwick did Talking Bad/Talking Dead for AMC. I think after-show analysis and commentary would be awesome.
Guinean was created because a famous major actress whoop Goldberg wanted to appear on TNG. They never knew when she would be available. She was popular enough to get a recurring role not a guest role as a crewman or something.
Funny that you mention character relatives dying and Sulu's daughter. I've heard that she became Captain of Enterprise-B and was eventually MIA with all hands.
Totally agree that star trek 2 and 6 are the best movies. I prefer TNG and DS9 but with the exception of first contact the TNG movies are bad to terrible
Kirk always get the bad rap as being a "cowboy" a shoot first and negotiate/think second. I am re-watching the Original Series and I am surprised how many times they go to the conference room or have discussions in Kirk's Quarters (he had no spiffy office like Picard). Sure he got in my fights than Picard ever did, but it was a smaller cast and if add up all of Riker's and other characters scuffles you might equal the number of fights Kirk was involved in. Love the Ensign's Log podcast, that is what got me back to TOS. Thanks.
With all due respect, if you're having trouble understanding how somebody can be both Conservative and a Trekkie, that says more about your understanding of what Conservatives are actually about than Conservatives' understanding of what Star Trek is about. I like your Star Trek videos. I almost always agree with you. My top favorite Trek films are the same as yours, most of the conclusions you draw either resonate with me or are ones I'd already drawn myself. :)
Then I think you are falling into the trap of being vague about what you think. In what ways do your conservative values resonate with the values of Star Trek?
Star Trek, TOS, was also thematically about the Cold War as well as exploring the human condition. 1960s Klingons were said to be an allegory to communists. Trek has said many other things since then, on many more issues. And the allegories haven't always been perfect.
Riker being useless on the bridge? Just one example, but in Cause and Effect, Riker's the one with the idea of decompressing the shuttlebay, while Data's idea of using the tractor beam is what fails and causes the time loop each time.
In defense of Quark in the episode “Sanctuary”, he wasn’t the only one who had trouble with the Skreeans. Once they announced that they wanted to settle on Bajor, Kira sided with her government and rejected their request. If memory serves, Odo wasn’t a big fan of them on DS9 either. I think this is an underrated episode, the writers went out of their way to make the Skreeans undesirable, their skin did flake, the males were portrayed as irritating and whiny and it was a polygamist society. Their appearance and culture were made to make the viewer feel uncomfortable. I am an advocate of immigration, it has made America what it is today but the implementation of it is highly nuanced and not very glamorous. Kudos to DS9 writers for hitting the target once again and being ahead of their time.
I fail to fathom why you don't even want to understand the reason why some Trump-supporters like Star Trek? That level of cognitive dissonance certainly peaks my curiosity.
@Leo Peridot , Ferengi have actual "moral" stances that are hard to change. Trump has no solid moral stances on anything aside from "what I think will benefit me the most at this particular moment". As such, the Ferengi are more Trustworthy than Trump.
First of all your willingness to be open to other views is effing awesome. Most commentators channels are my way or the highway situations. And I also really appreciated the points made on the magical negro tropes. I have always been a fan of science fiction growing up but seeing people that looked like me was far and in between and when they did show up they were ineffectual subordinates (Geordi) or magical negroes (Guinan). That’s why the DS9 series was so important to me.
Ummm, Stieve, I just went back to re-watch the advice scene to make sure:-
Tori does advice Data that emotions are neither 'negative' nor 'positive' when she asks why he is avoiding the only emotion he has felt.
When Data tries to explain that his research shows Anger to be a 'negative emotion' and he is avoiding it for other peoples safety she disagrees with his conclusion. Tori then goes on to tell data that emotions are neither positive or negative, only actions taken by a person should be considered such. Data even tried to argue back when Tori stated these emotions will not, in themselves, lead to hatred or malice by replying with the words:
"What if it does, Councilor?"
Good catch! I hadn't watched the episode in awhile. Obviously, I was remembering it wrong.
She does later say something about negative emotions when trying to argue with Data when he's under Lore's control, and Data does snap back saying that she herself said that emotions are neither negative nor positive, but that just shows that she's not able to deal with Data level pedantics in a crisis situation, which I don't think falls under her job description.
@@JoshuaHillerup More specifically, that's Geordi, the line being "Lore is only feeding you the negative ones", Data then turns around and says "Counselor Troi herself said that emotions are neither positive or negative" with peak TNG smug in his voice, and she just kind of sits there...lifeless...impotent...Reminder the anger drove him to deactivate his ethical programming and was all for Lore's plan of exterminating all biological life.
(I mean I was mostly just being a good natured jab, I would agree with Troi on principle that if Data doesn't learn to control his emotions in a sterile environment he might experience them in a crisis and get someone, maybe everyone, killed by mistake. Learning to control your emotions is part of being human. She just did it...badly xD)
I was gonna say the same thing, I was like "but she did say all that, like almost verbatim", lol!
@@dataportdoll7918 I thought controlling your emotions was part of being Vulcan 😜
“Psychics don’t belong in Star Trek” ya know, aside from the first episode, second episode, and basically every other episode of the original series, because “mind powers” was an easy special effect to do.
Honestly, I hate that psychic ability is relegated to being considered magic. While I accept that most portrayals, including in star trek, very much situate themselves on the magical end of the spectrum, there is reasonable, physically based potential for psychic or psychic like abilities.
There are life forms on earth that use unusual forms of communication that we just overlook.
However, even more basic, all communication comes in a few forms, electromagnetic, such as sight, or pressure waves such as hearing, and then a variety of chemical communication mechanisms.
Some Sharks however have adapted to have the ability to pick up electrical signals, which is just electromagnetism of course.
So it stands to reason that a realistic psychic ability would have some real hard limits, and wouldn't necessarily be portrayed as psychic.
It would be great to see these concepts explored in a good scifi that tries to avoid falling into magic psychic territory.
All Vulcans are psychics. Right from the beginning. That is the defining trait of their species; their entire culture is defined by the fact that they are telepathic. Why people forget about it?
I think there's a distinction to be made between being "psychic" and "telepathic"
I feel like one is hokey not really mathing math and the other is more about tapping into wavelengths that could be considered alternate ways of sentient communication.
@@badquestion4785 psychic does NOT equal telepathic.
@@beberivera7011 No, nothing about what you said makes sense, there is no reason to be pedantic about this.
"When Guinan shows up she always says or know something important." Of course at the time Whoopi was a Big Star. A successful standup comedian who was in the midst of a string of popular movies. She grew up a fan of TOS and contacted the producers of TNG interested in a role. She couldn't be a normal officer or crewman since she didn't want to work too much. Yet she wouldn't have taken an insignifcant role. They had to make a role she would like but that was optional to the main series plotline.
*Admiral McCoy visits the Enterprise-D*
McCoy: And what is your role on the ship, ma’am?
Troi: I sense bullshit.
McCoy: *tearing up* Thank you for your service.
Shit that would have been a really good scene
"Sulu and his partner are still in the prime of their lives." Don't you mean Kelvin of their lives? Badum-tiss. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
I want a special way to "thumbs-down" that does not actually have the effect of a thumbs-down.
Oh, you... No. Please stop.
@@WeAreAllGeeksHere +1 for a facepalm button. :p
Star Trek was never hard sci-fi. It was a TV series of moral, political, and psychological allegories. The sci-fi was just there to allow the writers to create any background/context they want for those allegories. The Star Trek writer's guide explicitly says to focus on characterization instead of science in the opener.
I'd call it more "aspirational sci-fi," especially given your description. Babylon 5, as a contemporary example, was more "hard sf" because they actually consulted JPL to design the Earthforce ships and futuristic tech in order to display a humanity in space that was somewhat more advanced, but achievably and recognizably so. (Although that's where the hard scifi ends, because from there it becomes a similarly hard look in the mirror for the human condition.)
I wonder if some of the sense of Riker's "uselessness" comes from the fact that a lot of the traditional role of a first officer/XO is about taking on the day-to-day management of the ship, to lighten the load on the captain. Vital work, but it doesn't make good TV so it tends to happen off-screen unless it impacts on the story, like in "Lower Decks", where Riker is in charge of the assessment of the Ensigns hoping to be promoted.
It's obvious this guy hasnt served. There is at least a loose recognition of how a crew works based on the USN. It is a convenient thing that day-to-day maintenance and repair must be automated because there are very few "crewmen" in TNG vs TOS but plenty of officers. Officers doing the important maintenance and repair is more a Soviet navy idea.
@@edwardslicker6126 Which guy hasn't served? You lost me on that point. Gene Roddenberry served in the US air force which I guess might explain why his space navy has such strange staffing, but I don't know enough about USAF to say.
Alternatively, maybe Gene admired the Soviet navy because he was a communist all along... okay, now I'm just snarking. >:D
@@eekee6034I would presume OP is talking about the presenter, in this case.
In 7 seasons..Riker says" Shields up..Red Alert" 87 times
Much better than Voyager saying they only having like 87 torpedoes and then using 250.
@@hmich176 It seems silly that they wouldn't be able to replicate the parts to build anything they want, including torpedoes and shuttlecraft.
@@hmich176 It's much worse than that. In the first season, I don't remember where exactly, Tuvok says they only have 26 photon torpedoes. I believe it was the pilot, but I could be wrong.
Scott Billingsley ... I find that argument people make weird. I agree, they may have started out with a limited number of torpedos, but once they realized they were stuck across the galaxy, it surely would have to be one of the first things you would do is make sure to prepare yourself by gathering resources for survival and the long journey home. You'd think they would trade, scavenge, and apparently even mine resources necessary for continued operation and survival.
@@SeattleScotty there were episodes where they shoehorned in some comments about not having enough dilitheum crystals (or somethin) to make coffee. The energy required to replicate different elements/objects isn't clear but i wouldn't be surprised if torpedo's are high on the list.
I would note that Riker's role is more true to life in ship command.
Ok, as a former Service Member, I feel that the view of Riker being useless needs some clarification. Riker is the First Officer, also known as the Executive Officer (X-O). The position of the X-O is supposed to help the Captain by handling more minor issues, and taking command if the Captain is incapacitated. If you notice, he is the one gathering casualty/damage reports, filling out crew rosters and schedules, and working on getting staff together for the Captain. Yeah, anybody could be telling the Captain this info, but from the chain of command, Riker is supposed to be the one to do it.
Also, as for the Animated Series being Canon, I would love to accept it as canon, but then again, they run into the devil at the center of the galaxy. Kind of destroyed that with Star Trek V.
Yeah, there's an episode where Troi and Riker have to slug through crew evaluations together (before Troi gets possessed by an evil spirit and starts rapidly ageing iirc). I felt like that gave us a hint as to what those two's actual job really was.
Riker also did a good job when Picard wasn't around. Riker could have a command of his own but decided to learn from Picard as long as he could (the actor wanted to get paid). I think this also is why he is so disappointed and acting a bit of a jerk when Jellico becomes captain of the enterprise, he likely felt he should have been the captain at that moment.
Joel Smith even if the technology is able it’s not so wise to entirely hand such tasks over to AI. Besides, the capabilities of trek IA suggests that manned ships are themselves anachronistic.
I remember reading that Gene Roddenberry considered Star Trek V apocryphal. That, and there is quite a bit of area in the center of the galaxy.
I agree there is a lot we don't see of the chracter, but they could make him have more importance as it is a star ship
Kelvin Kirk isn't just different from Prime Kirk, he's almost the complete opposite of Prime Kirk. Apart from the effects of the destruction of Vulcan on Spock, Kirk is the character most changed in the new timeline. He went from a young studious prodigy with the extensive support of a loving father to a kid raised in part by a verbally abusive uncle. He became rebellious and reckless in ways that Prime Kirk never was at that age, and it's a tribute to his character that he still grew into being a good leader eventually.
That's part of why I love the differences between the Kelvin and Prime timelines. In the Prime timeline a 25 year old cadet would never be a captain, and certainly never of the Enterprise. Kelvin Starfleet was so gutted of personnel after the Battle of Vulcan that this was their best choice, which is amazing to consider. It doesn't get the attention it deserves, but Kelvin Starfleet is in almost complete collapse after the events of the first move. This timeline is the story of characters staggering through apocalyptic events and not dealing very well with the trauma of the situation. It's the deconstruction of everything Roddenberry dreamed of the future being when he designed the setting of Star Trek, and it's fascinating.
Though I would have said Insurrection was the movie deconstruction of everything he dreamed of for the future.
I mean the lesson of the movie and its narrative is that Technology is ultimately a harmful force. That it should be rejected because it taints humanity and makes it forget what is actually important in life.
That alone is contrary to Trek's baseline (least as I ever picked it up on). Where it was a Utopia because of technology bettering everyone's lives. Where they were freed from hardship in order to truly explore what humanity was in the best of ways.
Still, you're not wrong about the Kirk differences. I always felt like though that the Kirk differences weren't purposeful though. Like Kelvin Kirk is the amalgamation of everything Pop Culture thinks Captain Kirk is. A cowboy, reckless action hero, womanizer who is ploughing a different girl every week, etc. Which is funny because that's basically the complete opposite of The Original Series Kirk where he's very by the book. He is mentioned having turned down and ignored Yeoman Rand's attempts to seduce him. And he tries to think and talk his way out of solutions far more than just go around punching and blasting.
It makes sense that Kelvin Kirk would be so different from Prime Kirk. He grew up without the influence of his father.
@@herbertholland924 did you just call Kirk Fatherless?? XDDD
One thing about Guinan I always wanted to know was why the hell was Q afraid of her? This all powerful being, cowering behind Picard when he sees Guinan. Hinted at, never explained.
Something that bothered me in Star Trek Generations was if Picard could use the Nexus to travel back in time, why didnt he go back to when they first rescued Soren and throw him in the brig before he destroyed stars. Or even a day or two before that, to send a transmission to his brother to avoid the fire?
Guinan obviously has some dirt on Q. It's not what she could do, but what she knows about him that he's afraid of. Perhaps his species has a weakness, like kryptonite with Superman?
Upset by psychic powers? You know, SPOCK might have a complaint about someone being upset that Troi is psychic.
Chekhov’s brother, Pieter was a figment if his own imagination, put there by the entity in the Day of the Dove episode, supposedly murdered by the Klingons, so Chekhov could hate Kang and his crew. Sulu remarks that Chekhov was an only child
Yes!
I was wondering if I was the only one to remember that until I saw this comment. I haven't watched TOS in over 10 years and I knew that!
Chekov didn't have a brother at all, he was an only child. "Piotr" was a hallucination created by the energy being in "Day of the Dove."
Forgot to mention that when Picard isn't there, Riker is usually the more competent of the characters on the show. He inputs complex command codes into the computer blind while explaining the concepts of the computer core to a Ferengi invader. he devised an ingenious tactical solution while at Starfleet Academy which was noted in his record. He developed a tactic that allowed his ship at the time, the Potemkin, to hide from an enemy - Data estimated that he used traditional tactics in battle only 21% of the time, preferring unorthodox methods that would make it hard for his enemies to predict. It was Riker's plan that allowed them to save Picard from the Borg. His quick thinking allowed them to destroy the Duras sister's Bird of Prey, saving them from complete destruction. His unwilling but brilliant prosecution of Data as a machine, not a man, devastated both Picard's planned defense and Picard himself at how effective it was. He saw through Sela's deception in Unification. He devised a solution that destroyed the attacking Son'a ships and saved the Enterprise. Starfleet was so desperate to give him a command they were practically throwing ships at him for years - I doubt they made a habit of doing that with incompetent officers.
Riker was one of the more able and competent command staff, I'm really unsure as to how anyone can doubt that. There is a point to be made about picking on Troi over any male member of staff, but Riker is not a good pick for the argument.
For the record, Troi said exactly what you say she should have said~
From the episode in question:
Counselor Deanna Troi: I'm curious. Why're you ignoring the one emotion you've already experienced? Why aren't you trying to make yourself angry again?
Lt. Cmdr. Data: Anger is a negative emotion. I wanted to concentrate on something more positive.
Counselor Deanna Troi: Data - feelings aren't positive and negative. They simply exist. It's what we do with those feelings that becomes good or bad.
Dude complains about how Troi makes Star Trek include magic, when the premiere episode of TNG has Q as the primary antagonist...
Premiere of the whole concept involves telepaths...
Except telepathy is not necessary magic. Empaths exist. To not have empathy is a mental illness known as anti social personality disorder, or better know colloquially as psychopathy.
If our thoughts are nothing but chemical and electrical signals, the idea of having a sensitivity to changes in those signals isn't exactly far fetched.
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 A lot of people have used "the force" as a reason for Star Trek being better than Star Wars because Star Trek is grounded more on reality. They will conveniently forget all the elements with Q, Troi and even Vulcan mind melds. It's just a way to try to justify why what they like is better than the other. That's all.
Quarks Bar and Counseling.
Come drink, and tell it all.
According to original TNG, Commander had to lead away teams, Captain stayed aboard the ship.
Then Picard said " STEP ASIDE, ....."
The main reason Riker sometimes seems useless is that he has no other job besides being the First Officer--his job was often nothing more that to make it so whenever Picard ordered him to make it so. In contrast, in TOS, Spock was both the First Officer and the Science Officer, so he had a function beyond simply repeating/relaying the Captain's orders.
William T. Riker prevented a war with the Klingons in "A Matter of Honor"; foiled an assassination attempt in "The Vengeance Factor"; defeated the Borg as Captain of the Enterprise in "The Best of Both Worlds" parts I and II; broke orders and saved the Enterprise in "The Pegasus" and saved the day in Star Trek: Insurrection. No, he is far from useless.
Patrick Dodds Thank you!
Not to mention that we actually see Riker do the job of an Executive Officer of a ship by doing crew evaluations and determining crew discipline and crew promotions. the TNG Episode "Lower Decks" is one such example that I can think of off the top of my head.
As far as saving the ship goes, there was also his advice in "Cause and Effect" that got them out of that fatal temporal loop with the USS Bozeman.
If we want to talk about a REALLY useless character: Tasha Yar and then Worf as Chief of Security. Worf didn't see his true potential come out until DS9. In TNG, they both had token dialogue and Worf was only originally intended to be "yesterday's enemies are today's friends" concept (like Rodenberry did with Pavel Chekov in TOS). Worf was just window dressing to begin with.
Also, his suggestion in 'cause and effect' was the correct one to break the loop!
Data's scolding of Warf on his execution of his roll as first officer explains the lack of opinions voiced by Riker.
The first officer isn't supposed to have his own (public) opinion.
"Who among us is without flaw?" Master Po to Kain.
You're spot on about Riker heading the away team. There had been complaints about Kirk putting himself in unnecessary danger. So I read that they didn't want to do the same with Picard
Yeah, I've heard those reports since the 80s. Initially I bought into the idea, but later I reasoned my way to an opposite conclusion. The XO could do a good job of getting the ship home, and if you read about the XO's role in Star Trek, a key part of the job is looking after the crew. The captain on the other hand has to deal with other species and must make quick, good decisions in times of danger; he must be a diplomat and a commander. Thus, the captain by definition must have many of the skills needed to lead an away team, but the XO needn't have. The whole thing seems to fit in with my observation that shows made for people who fought in wars from WW2 to Vietnam have a much clearer understanding of how to handle danger, but later shows are often dominated by relatively shallow feelings. Han shot first.
I wanna watch the holodeck version of Deadpool. You know that even in observation mode he's going to stop in the middle of a fight, walk over to you, and have you hold one of his weapons for a second.
General Martok liked Quark. He must be a ok guy
Also Quark won't hesitate to "unintentionally" double cross a criminal to Odo if the criminal hurts his profits, and the Bajorans tolerate Quark because he smuggled food for them during the occupation.
True you can always trust quark to be quark so he's not beyond a measure of understanding or control
Quark is such an interesting and insightful character. His speech to Nogg about 'HumAAns' and how wonderful they are as long as their bellies are full and their replicators are working is perfection. So much hate is sent his way but it really flips the other side to show how an alien would see up. And in that how actually forgiving he is as a character.
On the "Magical Negro" trope: I can see this as an extrapolation of the experience of a lot of white children being raised by black nannies. Having seen harder times, there was worldly experience and advice for them to share. There was an expression, if someone was wise, it was said of him, "He must have a bit of mammy's milk in him".
Ohhhhhh, that's a much nicer thought than I had. I grew up reading books in Britain where the magically insightful character was likely to be the protagonist's cousin's grandma. I thought Hollywood pushed that role off to Black and Native people to appease that peculiarly American set of white religious people who would be furious if they saw a white mystic.
pointing out Guinen as the "magical negro trope" reminds me of someone describing Uruha as "Even in the future, the best job a black lady can get is answering the space telephone" Which, like in retrospect, yeah, ok. But at the time it really was considered positive representation. Uhura was a full member of the bridge crew, and certainly more important than that blonde Yeoman. MLK was such a huge fan of the character he convinced Uruha's actress not to quit the show.
Quark for me is arguably one of my favourite characters in the entire franchise.
Much like Eugene from The Walking Dead, I think many people don't like him because he reminds us that humans, particularly in nations like the UK and US, are driven by wealth, desire and personal survival.
I think, he's a tremendous mirror for humanity and a deeply complex and rich character as a result.
In fact, nudge nudge, like your Gul Dukat video, I think maybe Quark could be worth a full Trek Actually on reasons stated and more?
I always loved Quark. I feel like his character arc can best be described as an allegory for how an individual can be molded by their own toxic societal norms and expectations, but when encountered with a "better" worldview, in this instance the inclusiveness and optimism, and even the morality of humans/star fleet, that the individual can shrug off all the baggage of their society to become a better individual over all.
I love how the events of Undiscovered Country set up motivation for Ambassador Spock's motivations in TNG: Unification.
I never felt that Guinan was "magical" at all. There were far more "magical" characters who were not cast as a black woman. Q, for instance could master time, space and matter. That immortal man who married a human woman and ended up committing genocide in "a blink of an eye" (I could go on, but it is a long list). I just feel she is from a long-lived race of beings who were inter-stellar travelers. Because of her expanded experience as well as her relative age (she has many adult children), she is at a place in her life where an individual can step back to see a fuller picture. Being a sexagenarian (it sounds more fun than it really is) myself, I recognize where she is in her life.
A 'magical negro' is actually a trope in American literature, television, and film. It's a wise African American supporting character that the white main characters will go to for advice. Many African American artists feel like it's a stereotype, like the 'noble savage' Native American character.
That being said, your perspective made me look at Guinan very differently. Since she doesn't appear older, I never thought about her being someone that others on the ship would go to because of her experiences and that is what gives her advice weight. I'd never looked at her that way before. Thank you for that!
Kai Winn played today by Donald Trump
Female Founder played by Mitch McConnell?
mixing it up a bit:
Weyone played by Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Dukat played by Bill Barr
Damar plated by Jared Kushkush with stand in by Steven Miller
Pah-Wraith played herself by Kellyann Conway
guinan reminds me of a grandma and I love my grandma
Guinan was there as eye candy like 7 of 9 8 )
Hearing someone refer to Star Trek as "hard sci-fi" made me lol for real.
Star Trek could be mistaken for “hard sci-fi” in the sense that there’s explanations for most prominent tech, there’s detailed technical manuals full of compelling fake tech, and a lot of the show revolves around technology. That said, it’s obviously not hard sci-fi.
Personally, I would borrow a term from fantasy and call it “high” sci-fi, while something like The Expanse would be “low” sci-fi, with little emphasis on technology and a lot more focus on drama.
Just discovered this channel... absolutely loving it! You walk the perfect line between an unbiased exploration of themes and your own personal feelings, always making it very clear which observations are personal preference and which ones are simply logical conclusions. You explore differing viewpoints other than your own, and you even concede to others when presented with a strong counter-argument. I'm also glad to see you're not one of these UA-camrs who avoids throwing in a little political humor out of worry that someone will be offended. A+ content right here, folks!
It occurred to me listening to the bit about Troi and Guinan (I had seen the original video) that many of Guinan's scenes, at least initially, may have been intended to be Troi. After all, Whoopi Goldberg lobbied the producers for a part, and they likely created one for her rather than cast her in an existing role. In that sense, Troi's character and usefulness may have been sabotaged by the introduction of Guinan.
I would nominate Neelix from Voyager as the most useless (and a little annoying) character of all time in the Star Trek universe
He was Jar Jar Binks before Jar Jar Binks existed.
The best thing about Quark is how his changes come about as a result of Starfleet and his friends on the station. There are a few scenes where he comments on being surrounded by ethics and compassion for so many years that they have warped his mind, seeing them as negative changes he can't help against, while those around him see such changes as good.
Sometimes it is unclear if him doing something good is due to knowing its wrong, or because he doesn't want to deal with the consequences. Like when he sold weapons the final straw to stop was the high demanded death count, but up to that point he was already questioning his actions due to Starfleet, especially Dax refusing to have anything to do with him.
Prime Kirk grew up with having George Kirk as a father, a duty-driven man who sacrificed his life to save the crew along with his wife and newborn child in the Kelvin timeline. Kelvin Kirk grew up with the douchenozzle who, presumably, cared more about his classic car than his stepson. Kelvin Kirk did not have a positive role model like Prime Kirk did, until Captain Pike came along and took Kirk under his wing. For me, this explains a lot of the differences between the two.
You mention that The Cage wasn't available until the 1980s, but I and a few more people saw it back in the early 1970s. I was a student at THE Ohio State University and Gene Roddenberry was a featured speaker at an on-campus event. He screened The Cage, gave a speech about his career and how he developed Star Trek and then had a question-and-answer session. I got lucky, twice. I interviewed him and Majel Barrett before the show for our student newspaper. Later, during the show I worked as a security guard for the event. The event was a logistical nightmare. OSU completely underestimated the popularity of Star Trek and had first come first served at the event ticket sales. Several thousand people showed up for an auditorium that seated less than five hundred. And it started raining.
After the show Roddenberry felt sorry for us poor security guards, and the ordeal of handling the angry crowd, and took us all out for drinks with him and his wife. He bought me my very first Martini! He talked a little about his time in WWII and his career with the LAPD. He talked about writing for Dragnet and about plans for future shows like Genesis II. I've heard some people describe Gene as testy or hard to work with. That's not the guy I met. He was funny, outgoing, and generous. I hadn't really been a Star Trek fan up to that point, but he won me over.
I think that "right wing" and "left wing" are moving targets as right and left (politically and practically) are relative to your perspective. For instance, looking from the outside into US politics the Democratic party would be considered centrist or right of centre and the Republican party is very right far right.
I will say that I am from a country with free universal health care and my country has as multi-party democracy instead of the two party state of the US.
To my point, if we make the assumption that most Star Trek fans speak English and the USA has the largest English speaking population, I can would say that a very large portion of fans are not liberals from my point of view.
That's an excellent point and I thank you for raising this.
It's definitely changed a lot. And the way words are used to describe political positions can also tend to shift (or be hijacked)
Not only your points, Even as a child, I always saw Trek as very Moderate, by U.S. standards. There are elements to Federation society that are from many facets of the ideological spectrum. As I approach 50, I still find new ways of looking at the stories that help broaden my view of the world.
I agree. Also, I don't have to love everything in a show to be able to enjoy it. If I can overlook plot holes, I can also understand a little bit of pandering, if it doesn't destroy the narrative. I loved VOY because I used to watch with my mother. We now watch Discovery and I love it.
Star Trek is literally Fully Automated Gay Space Communism. It doesn't get more lefty than that. They could use some work on their justice system though. It's pretty draconian at times. Section 31 is a little faschy too, but that just shows the need for continuous revolution.
A Star Trek anthology-style show would be awesome, each episode focusing on a different ship and crew and the adventures they have where there's no guarantee that the crew of the week would survive their encounter.
I've always thought of the holodeck as consisting of lots of "bubbles" surrounding the users along with some treadmills to keep them from hitting the walls. Otherwise, how could people wander off from each other in a virtual environment larger than the holodeck? The holodeck projects what the environment should be in a bubble around each user instead of projecting on the walls or whatever. So in our High Fidelity holoprogram, you could have the option of each user seeing John Cusack stare at them alone, like modern 3D movies where everyone sees the same 3D perspective.
That's basically how it's explained in the TNG technical manual.
Well, I never read any technical manuals, but in an early episode of TNG it's stated that the computer guides you away from the walls, essentially in virtual circles. Although, the physical holodeck (when turned off) always seemed to look too small to truly accomplish this.
On a related note, unless my memory has failed me, the same episode also stated that the holodeck functions similar to a replicator (which in turn functions much like a transporter, limited by the size or complexity of the "patterns" that can store). So it actually creates physical objects, not holographic ones, and can alter them at will. And, since the objects can only exist inside the holodeck, then we can assume that it isn't just replicating matter and letting it be, but it's constantly replicating and re-replicating everything (expect physical items/people brought in from outside). This explains how complex things, such as people, can be replicated without actually being real. The computer is simply replicating only what is needed for them to appear real and through constant replication and dematerialization they become interactive. Think of it as a large scale 3d printer that builds everything pixel by pixel, except it ALSO acts like a old school CRT/Television where each pixel must constantly be "redrawn" otherwise it will fade out of existence.
The above supposition in to the inner workings of the Holodeck may help to explain why sometimes things can briefly leave the holodeck. Snow/water is fairly simple and may "persist" longer. The same goes for the paper with the drawing of the ship. Although, bad, or at least inconsistent, writing is ultimately to blame.
Speaking of bad writing, any star trek fan should go read (or listen to, as i did) Redshirts by John Scalzi. His writing isn't bad.
_Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most ... human._
-- Adm. James T. Kirk
_I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy._
-- Capt. James T. Kirk
In the cases of _Star Trek II_ and _Star Trek VI,_ Kirk is hit where he lives, first with Spock and later with the fallout from a son he barely gets to know. _Star Trek III_ and _IV_ are more involved with getting back what was lost (Spock) and reestablishing that relationship ... along with saving Earth, of course (minor detail!). With TWoK and TUC, we get past the veneer of Kirk and into his primal workings, as you observe, and that's what makes those two the most compelling of all the _Star Trek_ movies.
@JohnnyTheWolf I suspect part of Kirk's reaction is in that he has been about his career for so long that when he's confronted with the fact that he's had no LIFE apart from his career, then having that chance of a life outside of Starfleet stripped away from him ... yeah, some people might get pretty bitter, even irrationally so. It may not be the best explanation, but I think it fits to a degree.
@JohnnyTheWolf Which is supposed to make it all the more tragic.
@@Troubleshooter125 Exactly!
@JohnnyTheWolf Unlike Steve Shives, I think THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY is a lousy movie, with a lot of dumbness in it, including the unbridled racism--one of the most offensive and incredibly stupid part in it to me is after the dinner party when the crew makes comments about how they smell and how disgusting their eating habits are or something--if the writers/producers wanted to make a point, then there should have been a corresponding scene in which the Klingons are back on the Bird of Prey talking about how disgusting and how smelly the humans are!!!!!
And then Uhura doesn't know Klingon? Are you fucking kidding me? She's a high-ranking officer in Communications, for cryin' out loud!!!!
And quoting Shakespeare in the "original Klingon." Again, give me a fucking break!!!!!
And why would the conspiracy against Kirk want to hand him over to the Klingons? If he (KIrk) hates them so much, then they should have wanted to bring him INTO the conspiracy. Protected him.
And THAT would have been an interesting movie--a real journey for James Tiberias Kirk and the rest of the crew as they explored their true feelings about "other races."
@JohnnyTheWolf I know. And I hated it.
"It's the nerdiest thought i've ever had" and its truly, such a great thought.
Obviously Riker is there to channel Kirk/be space-horny. It's his most prominent character trait.
that man taught me how to mount a chair
I find it a bid revelation-y how lack of racial consciousness can influence one's perception. I take me as an example. When i grew up and watched TNG (and i come from a racially "monolithic" society) i never saw Guinan as the magical negro.....come to thing of it, i didn't see her as a "negro" at all. I always thought of her as an Elaurian (or however you spell her species). I never saw Worf as a negro either. To me, he was always a Klingon. The only major character in TNG that was "racially" defined to me, was Geordi. And he was certainly not the magical one...... Even now, in my middle age, it would never have occurred to me to thing of Guinan in any other way. I guess culture and bringing does make a lot of difference.
As to Quark, i must agree with you wholeheartedly. He is among my favorite DS9 charcters and probably Trek characters in general. I think, above all, what DS9 did better then any other Trek show before it, or after, was the way it portrayed all the cultures and species in that universe. What could easily be dumbed down to the weekly comic relief species in TNG (think Worf i.e.) like the Ferengi, was fleshed out into a complex culture. Yes, we can argue about its ethical virtues from the moral high ground of today's values, but there is no doubt there was more to them then just greed. Both as individuals, and as a species, Ferengis were portrayed as a complex individuals with rich history and culture. Klingons in TNG fared a bit better (except for poor Worf), having enough episodes that had Klingon politics as their focal points, however DS9 raised that to the next level, even giving individual Klingon characters more then just being the dumb barbarian brutes. Worf of course, benefited the most, having been turned from the clumsy naive giant kid on the playground that everybody made fun off, into a a multi layered individual, with his own story arcs and motivations.
I don't know about it being impossible to like Trek and be right wing at the same time.
I am a lefty and I love Firefly. I recognize that it's super libertarian in form and message, but I can kinda treat that as part of the spectacle.
I feel like you can read Firefly as left-libertarian, though. It is firmly and prominently anticorporation, for one thing. Mostly it's just generically anti-authoritarian, which has every place on the left.
A fans political leanings has nothing to do with the media they consume. I served in the Army for 8 years and I knew many soldiers who loved Star Trek and were right of center. What the person who wrote that comment is that not every person is so politically focused that they allow there politics to dictate what they can and can't do. There are many people, myself included, that compartmentalize every aspect of there life and are able to enjoy life to the fullest.
I find that people are are super obsessed in projecting their beliefs onto others at all times, regardless of their stances, usually cannot understand that others aren't necessarily that way. People also forget that the world in which we live has real consequences that affect people's lives, whereas in fiction we aren't so constrained. I question what the "point" people might be missing is, given that the stated intent of most of the people behind Trek is to make sure everyone can take away something different and personal to them.
If a left winger and a right winger appeared in star trek, the right winger would be the bad guy. Right wingers are obtuse and lack thinking skills, so i can see how they could still enjoy the flashing lights and explosions. also, two white men are in charge during all of TNG. so maybe it's not as leftist or egalitarian in its execution as people think.
Totally, disagree with the "magical" slight of Guinan & race element of the statement.
I would say its a "Magical Bartender" moment when she arrives which is NO different than when Woody shows up on Cheers & does the same thing. Something the other bartender could not do because he was self centered.
I think that to some extent Riker, and Troi share the same issue as characters in that major parts of their role on the crew are just implied rather than shown in the series. In Riker's case, he's heavily implied to handle much of the ship's routine administrative duties while Troi is often implied to spend much of her time functioning as a liaison between the ship's starfleet and civilian populations, both important roles within the world of the series but difficult to depict with regularity on screen.
In retrospect...
Why was a super-strong android allowed on a starship? His potential to cause damage was enormous! Nobody sufficiently understood how he functioned enough to determine whether he could be compromised. And he went rogue countless times!
He graduated from the academy just like everyone else. Further, Vulcan's and Klingons are way stronger than humans but they too are allowed on Starfleet vessels.
Really I think this just speaks to the egalitarian ideal that Starfleet aims towards.
"Not Actually Trek Actually" seem to actually be my favorite "Trek Actually" episodes
re: Quark
Anyone that hates him should watch House of Quark pt1 & pt2
I have been saying for years a great idea for star trek would be a version of star trek wherethere isnt always a happy ending. One where we explore the scarey creepy side of space exploration. Maybe something like THE X FILES meets THE TWILIGHT ZONE in space. Episodes that would not be set on just one hero ship but mutiple ships and even large and small space stations and even outposts.
I always saw Quark as an Archy Bunker type character. He has a lot of flaws. His father was a failure in business, his mother and brother don't have character traits that are consistent with his society's belief. His life caused him to over compenate for his family flaws. However, he's allowed to softened up by the people around him, and by the end of the series, although is still talks about looking out for himself, he does act to the benefit of his friends and others at the expense of profit.
I love the nerdy holodeck question. Yes the actor follows you when it breaks the 4th wall. In a group it follows the person who initiated the program. Just a thought :)
as a conservative, and a Star Trek Fan I would like to respond to the question regarding Trump supporters and Trek. First, I would like to point out that I am not conflating being a Trump supporter with being a conservative. I am a conservative because I believe in the abilities of individuals to come together and over come challenges on a societal and cultural level out of choice, not as a matter of law. And that is what appeals to me about Star Trek. We never see any indication that hate speech have been outlawed in the Federation, but rather there is no need to have laws regarding the moderation of the action of speech because as a society people have come together to embrace and accept differences. Not because the government passed a law saying declared statements of X, Y, and Z type are illegal for reasons of being damaging and/or dangerous.
Now I mentioned being a conservative but not a Trump Supporter. I disagree with Trump on about about 97% of everything he has said and done, but I do still consider myself a conservative. I absolutely 100% with out question support same-sex marriage, I think the immigration system in this country or horribly convoluted and screwed up to the point that the criminals who want to exploit it have about 150 ways to do so while the people who actually want to come here can't tell what they are supposed to do and that the entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up to address these problems but I wholeheartedly disagree with setting up holding camps with some sort of vague idea of "Sort it out later". I think giving blanket tax breaks to companies and CEO on some kind of blind hope that they will take the money and reinvest in the community/their company is just a signed invitation to be abused and taken advantage of and that such tax breaks should come in response to such investments, not in hope of them.
But to come back to the question of being a conservative and a Star Trek Fan, as I said before: it inspires me to work to build a future where we has individuals have grown enough to work to over come societal level problems by choice, not government mandate. Do not confuse that with being a Trump Supporter.
I think you are more of a moderate than a conservative. Nevertheless your point is 100% correct.
You sound like one of the many reasonable moderates who the Republican party as abandoned.
I always thought star trek could be appreciated by conservatives as when it tackles issues it's always broad banner examples such as "racism is bad" "men and women are equal". A conservative can look at the future in star trek and feel pride as laws in place have fixed surface issues. You never see an episode in which geordi is asked "but where are you from really".
Except societal level problems in Trek have largely been solved via post-scarcity socialist policies, which is what allows the choice you admire so much in play in the show. Federation citizens can choose how to excel and contribute in a way that best suits them specifically because they don't have to worry about starving to death or losing their home or going bankrupt from medical expenses. It's an inherently anti-conservative franchise, particularly TOS and TNG.
I've always seen Quark as a sort of Worf-like character- not in the sense that they share the same values of course, but in the sense that they both go to great lengths to keep their cultural customs in exile, while struggling with balancing the "hu-mon" values they come to display.
Is Guinan just as Powerful as Q? I remember Q and Guinan meet and Q say you don't know what type of creature you have on board
Rikers other job was resolving staffing issues. they mention staffing reports and such a few times
I like the question about trump supporters. I would call myself more conservative leaning then you, but I could not bring my self to support Trump. And I'd say most of the reasons he lost my vote was because of the values of Star Trek I hold. I couldn't elect Harry Mudd or Biff Tannen President. When watching that part of your video I thought who on Star Trek most closely encapsulates my politics, and Quark came to mind. Later in the video when you talk about Quark it made me laugh. I'm not quite as Quark like as I originally thought. Although I think the conversation with Quark and Garak about root beer sums up the federation well. I like Quark because it shows that not everyone in the ST universe is a knight in shining armor. And its ok to like the people who can do the right thing even if it is a bit self serving. I think that makes the universe more real. On another point, I'd like to see you do a video about what you enjoy about the JJ movies. I'm not a fan of them. I feel like their stories are weak and rushed. I don't hate them, so I would love to hear your opinions on them and maybe I'd see a side of them I haven't seen before. Thanks for all the Trek videos.
Sounds to me like you are an actual fiscal conservative of the type that was more than willing to compromise and govern, as opposed to a religious-right leaning, personality-cult, obstructionist "OWN TEH LIBZ" conservative, and are therefore sane.
One of the reasons Guinan never had any adventures and was never the protagonist of the A or B stories is that Whoopi Goldberg was contractually limited. When she first appeared as Guinan, she had a very active movie career and couldn’t be tied up shooting for more than a day or sometimes less. Notice that she normally only shows up on one set and often only for one scene. That way they could shoot all her stuff in one setup. Even Guinan’s hat served the purpose of quickly hiding whatever hairstyle Whoopi might be wearing for whatever film she was on. She had to be written as she was (a catalyst rather than a participant) because the producers might have to drop her scene at the last minute and assign her advice to a different character. Sometimes practical circumstances can have unintended consequences. Had Guinan been a full-fledged recurring character, she might have received better development.
Hi Steve, re your questions just before 13:30 (1.would a holodeck theatrical character who breaks the fourth wall appear to follow you?; 2.what if there were multiple spectators?).
In answer to 2: I think the holodeck could (if so programmed) direct light rays to each spectator's eyes so that every one of them would each perceive that theatrical character to be addressing them personally, at one and the same time.
In answer to 1: that presumably would depend on whether the holodeck program was set to project the scene and characters relative to that spectator viewpoint, or to project with a fixed reference frame - such that a spectator who moved relative to that frame would see different perspectives.
In theory, it could be set differently for multiple spectators at one and the same time, each seeing only their 'own' custom-projected reality (and each other). However, that could be wildly inconsistent and confusing (likely inducing vertigo, possibly nausea!) - since shifting one's gaze, turning one's head, or moving bodily - while immersed in a 'self-relative' custom projection - would result in that scene shifting wildly around and/or through the other real human spectators.
Ideally, multi-user programs would maintain a realtime perceptual environment consistent for each same-time participant.. within reason.
(Hacking holodeck settings to present individually-inconsistent projections could be a temptation for mischievous or malicious cadets.. ;O )
In STAR TREK GENERATIONS I remember Captain Kirk asking who was at the helm of the Enterprise B and she said her name DEMORA SULU. Kirk's response was "It wouldn't be the Enterprise without a Sulu at the helm."
Riker's primary function was to effectively and efficiently execute Picard's commands. If Picard gave an order that would have everyone working double shifts -- Riker was the face who would get the job done, organize the shifts, manage the personalities, and step in to enforce when necessary, so Picard could focus on making big decisions. The TNG Enterprise is clearly a VERY well-run ship. Stands to reason then that Riker is excellent at his job. Furthermore, Riker is very well-liked. I imagine on most Federation ships, the 1st Officer is despised as the executor of the Captain's demanding will. Additionally, Riker can step up and take command effectively, is awesome on away missions, is an excellent pilot, and is nearly on Worf's level at hand-to-hand combat. Riker definitely doesn't do much when we see him on the bridge, but when everything else is running smoothly, it's important to remember that Riker is a BIG reason why.
Going off of the issue with Troi being psychic and such, let us not forget another psychic race that features very heavily in Star Trek; the Vulcans. The mind meld is a form of touch-based telepathy, strong enough even that it can store the user's mind, soul, or whatever a katra is supposed to be in the mind of another being. It's not even limited to physical contact; Spock sensed the coming of V'Ger from a significant distance in TMP. Some of the psychics mentioned in the video (humans with a penchant for ESP, for example) can be sort of chalked up to Early-Instalment Weirdness since they don't seem to show up again. But the Vulcans and their mind meld? Extremely well established, throughout the entirety of Star Trek.
"No you can't, don't even try!"
At one of the TNG conventions, Frakes says he only had one job on the bridge, and there are only so many ways you can say "Red Alert." Or something like that.
You observed/felt that Kirk's development as a character occurred in Star Trek (2): The Wrath of Kahn and in Star Trek (6): The Undiscovered Country. Without the events which had taken place in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the growth Star Trek (6): The Undiscovered Country wouldn't have been a factor. Learning that he had an {adult} son and losing him shortly there after certainly shaped who he was at the beginning of Star Trek VI.
I'd never heard of the Magical Negro trope before, but wow. After having it pointed out, I can think of dozens of instances of it.
If the actress were white, what would the criticism be ?
About the “Cognitive dissonance“ of being a conservative trekkie: My entire immediate family loves Star Trek, And we are very conservative Catholics. In fact, I’m an officer on the apologetics team at my Church in college, and five out of seven of us are huge trekkies as well as very conservative. Most of us think Trump is an embarrassment, but we don’t think he’s the spawn of Satan. You can enjoy the sci-fi, characters, comedy, philosophical musings, etc. without agreeing with all of the social commentary, Which can still be intriguing even if one doesn’t always agree with it. But there’s plenty in Star Trek that works quite comfortably with Catholic moral and social teaching.
It’s like enjoying Star Wars without actually believing in the Force.
Yes there are people that can in the same breath believe in a talking snake and the worst case of genetic inbreeding nature has ever seen and then turn around and use science and logic in provable ways to better humanity.
We are truly a unique species.
Sure, there's plenty in Star Trek that works with Catholic moral teaching. But there's nothing about Trump that fits Catholic moral teaching.
Gul du Kat has a fair amount in common with Trump, though just the negatives, unfortunately. Gul is far more likeable IMO
April was canonized in Discovery, Saru has the computer create a program to evaluate his performance as captain by comparing it to the most decorated commanders in Starfleet history including Archer, April, and Pike
April, along with key elements of the plot of The Cage, were canonized in The Menagerie. I was a little bit surprised Steve forgot that, but he remembers a lot of stuff I've forgotten and he has more stuff to remember anyway. I stopped watching most all TV and films before the first Star Trek Kelvin film.
15:42 well... You could tell by the amount of lens flares
Steve, I really get why you probably don't want to do the research but I would love to watch your long form take on right wing trek fans and how they interpret the show so differently. Personally I find two categories of fan particularly interesting, those that seem to project themselves onto characters like Gul Dukat and those that seem to be way too interested in military details.
Maybe I'm misreading that second group entirely, either way you're quickly becoming my favorite Trek critic/analyst (or however you'd prefer to put it) and I'd love to know your thoughts on the subject.
From what I know of the conservative mentality, they probably interpret Gul Dukat as a representation of liberals. Their rhetoric usually portrays any kind of progressive advocacy as an attack on their rights, as backwards as that is. You shouldn't really give the rank-and-file conservative public too much credit for their skills at critical thinking.
Im sure it's more complicated than this but I think a big part of it is that no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story. Everyone thinks they're the hero, particularly people who are not terribly introspective as it is. Our Trumpy-Trekkie can watch Star Trek without relating any of the moral messages back to themselves and their own choices, even if/when they condemn the bad guys for committing the exact same bad acts Trumpy-Trekkie engages in every day (i.e. racism, fascism, misogyny, general intolerance, etc.). If they think of how their behavior compares to the Trek villain at all, they justify their own actions by insisting it's different when they do it because "I don't mean any harm" or "I only do that to people who deserve it". This, is in contrast to how they view the Trek villain, who clearly both intended to be evil and was harming those who did not "deserve it" in the mind of Trumpy-Trekkie.
Basically it all comes down to the fact that almost everyone in the world truly, deeply believes they are a good person, even when they objectively are not. Probably even Hitler thought he was a good person. He probably justified his actions by saying he was restoring honor or glory to his people and/or other grosser reasons. Humans are just really great at self-delusion.
Seconded by me.
I am all for this too.
Politics is Poison, anyone who tries and infect another with their politics is Evil. But 99.9% of humans cannot grasp this let alone apply it to life so we will enter another Dark Age soon. But no one will blame themselves.................
I’ve never actually considered psychic powers as fantasy, but more on the speculative end of SF. Like, it’s never really shown as being powered by mana, incantations, or even some mystic other dimension. It’s always powered purely from an individual and has more to do with the unknown aspects of consciousness/subconscious and perception than pure wish fulfillment like magic is.
Just to clarify, Riker has 3 main jobs on the Enterprise. one of Rikers main jobs while on the ship is setting up the duty rosters, basically making the day to day schedules of the crew. This is, however, a very boring thing to see on screen so we dont see it unless it's important to the plot.
Another of his main duties would be to be in command on the bridge while Picard is taking care of daily needs, like recreation, eating and sleeping.
Lastly, as stated in the video, he leads most away teams.
It might be functionally redundant, but its far from useless to have an active on deck back up for a ship captain, who is probably the most important staff member outside of a chief engineer. Even modern ships do this. And it makes sense for Riker to be on stand by, if just to learn actively from the captains example. Troi is only on deck for whenever her power actually works or she might potentially be allowed to say something useful. One does not necessarily need a counselor on deck otherwise. She's not a diplomat or negotiator outside of her context. Troi easily could have been background.
The animated season is where Kirk's eventual canonical middle name, Tiberius, originated. He was James J. Kirk in the second pilot and only had middle initial T. in TOS production run.
Kelvin Kirk had no father figure to guide him and was frustrated in life because of it. not surprised he behaves differently
Going a bit further into Riker's role on the Enterprise, he's often seen filling the same role as a modern navy XO, being more hands on with regard to executing the captain's orders and managing the finer details of running the ship, like ship readiness, personnel matters (like crew evaluations) and whatnot. On a ship as big as the Enterprise-D, having a dedicated First Officer (XO) would be quite essential to keeping the captain from being bogged down in the minutiae of command.
The only problem I have with Quark's capitalism is that it's mostly played for laughs, which perhaps downplays the ruthlessness of capitalism.
The episode where he finds himself being drawn into an arms deal that will result in mass murder is essentially the show lampshading this issue.
The character cannot be both a comic relief character and someone who profits from mass murder, so we are shown that there are limits to what Quark will do for profit.
To make a quibble on the second response of Star Trek being "hard" sci fi, that is just not even remotely true. Star Trek has always played fast and loose with it's science fiction, and many times hand waves away when science actually explains how those technologies would work (the Heisenberg compensator for the transporters was their hand wave to explain the improbability factor of transporters, as an example). Most things that happen in Star Trek are improbable if not down right impossible to perform, and while many fans will denote the tried and true "we just aren't advanced enough" excuse, science itself has progressed fairly far to have a decent understanding of how FTL, transporters, and many other wondrous things in the Star Trek ideology would work.
And on the subject of continuity, this one always baffles me that fans get so riled up over it, despite even Star Trek, since its inception, has played fast and loose with its continuity to the point of retconning their very own continuity constantly throughout TOS, TNG and DS9. It also baffles me that people are upset that "things look different" is some how an excuse to say that TOS era series events don't use gumball buttons and cheap cardboard paneling instead of trying to keep the ship "technologically" updated to be equal to if not superior than a modern PC and our phones, which seems to be the biggest quibbles I note about Kelvin hate or even reboots of things like Discovery.
Some kinda entanglement of shared reference data between minds, I guess?
David Evans Yeah, the term “hard sci-fi “ gets abused in visual media all the time. As a reader I have a pretty good grasp on the concept and nothing ever recorded to film or video card has come close!
The current darling of the TV sci-fi fandom is The Expanse and all the chatter seems to be about how we FINALLY have a realistic hard sci-fi show....
Ignoring the fact the the main drivers of the plots for show and books are basically trek level magic, a propulsion system that breaks physics exactly as badly as treks warp drive and an alien molecule that is beyond Harry Potter levels of magic.
Hard sci-fi bases it’s central premise and the McGuffins driving the plot soundly within known possibly.
@@DrewLSsix I am not sure I would say nothing. 2001 A Space Odyssey was decently representative, though they still cut some corners. The follow up, of course, was definitely way more Hollywood.
Star Trek is having so many nearly-god characters that I can't imagine how anyone is thinking it is hard scifi. Even TOS has some Gods in it, before TNG came up with the Q-stuff. I can't imagine something more fantasy than Gods.
First officer or executive officer duties are dealing with the staff functions: intelligence, logistics, maintenance; engineering, personnel, etc and being able to advise the commander about the status of those elements so that the commander can make informed decisions, vis a vis, ships capability of completing assigned missions. It’s a boring, thankless but critical job that allows the commander to “command” instead of getting personally involved in the day to day decisions of actually running the ship
(3) Steve I think if CBS wanted to give you a job, the best opportunity would be for you to host fan-reaction show sort of like how Chris Hardwick did Talking Bad/Talking Dead for AMC. I think after-show analysis and commentary would be awesome.
Now you've done it... another feature future Holodecks will need to consider. "Computer! Shives Protocol please."
"Magic" = "Phenomena I Personally Don't Possess The Scientific Data To Explain"
Guinean was created because a famous major actress whoop Goldberg wanted to appear on TNG. They never knew when she would be available. She was popular enough to get a recurring role not a guest role as a crewman or something.
Riker helms the ship: destroys bad guys with no weapons.
Troi helms the ship: crashes the saucer section for no reason.
Eh. Pretty sure she didn't have that much control at that point?
Funny that you mention character relatives dying and Sulu's daughter. I've heard that she became Captain of Enterprise-B and was eventually MIA with all hands.
Why does Riker sit down and get up from chairs so weirdly?
The actor’s back issues
Holy crap. Went over a whole scenario about watching my favorite movie in the holodeck. That made my day.
Totally agree that star trek 2 and 6 are the best movies. I prefer TNG and DS9 but with the exception of first contact the TNG movies are bad to terrible
Kirk always get the bad rap as being a "cowboy" a shoot first and negotiate/think second. I am re-watching the Original Series and I am surprised how many times they go to the conference room or have discussions in Kirk's Quarters (he had no spiffy office like Picard).
Sure he got in my fights than Picard ever did, but it was a smaller cast and if add up all of Riker's and other characters scuffles you might equal the number of fights Kirk was involved in.
Love the Ensign's Log podcast, that is what got me back to TOS. Thanks.
With all due respect, if you're having trouble understanding how somebody can be both Conservative and a Trekkie, that says more about your understanding of what Conservatives are actually about than Conservatives' understanding of what Star Trek is about. I like your Star Trek videos. I almost always agree with you. My top favorite Trek films are the same as yours, most of the conclusions you draw either resonate with me or are ones I'd already drawn myself. :)
Well,Steve specified Trump supporters.Can you not separate Conservatives from Trump supporters?
Then I think you are falling into the trap of being vague about what you think. In what ways do your conservative values resonate with the values of Star Trek?
Star Trek, TOS, was also thematically about the Cold War as well as exploring the human condition. 1960s Klingons were said to be an allegory to communists. Trek has said many other things since then, on many more issues. And the allegories haven't always been perfect.
@@kennethrapp1379 And there we have it! Thank you !
Trumpists are right-wing bigots, racists, and fascists. They sure as hell aren't conservatives.
Picard, "Lead the away team, Number One."
Riker, Achievement Unlocked: Expendable.
'Riker's "Number One"-job...' I see what you did there! (^^,)
Riker being useless on the bridge?
Just one example, but in Cause and Effect, Riker's the one with the idea of decompressing the shuttlebay, while Data's idea of using the tractor beam is what fails and causes the time loop each time.
Is Chakotay also "magical"?
He has the magic power to stupify people with boredom.
In defense of Quark in the episode “Sanctuary”, he wasn’t the only one who had trouble with the Skreeans. Once they announced that they wanted to settle on Bajor, Kira sided with her government and rejected their request. If memory serves, Odo wasn’t a big fan of them on DS9 either. I think this is an underrated episode, the writers went out of their way to make the Skreeans undesirable, their skin did flake, the males were portrayed as irritating and whiny and it was a polygamist society. Their appearance and culture were made to make the viewer feel uncomfortable.
I am an advocate of immigration, it has made America what it is today but the implementation of it is highly nuanced and not very glamorous. Kudos to DS9 writers for hitting the target once again and being ahead of their time.
I fail to fathom why you don't even want to understand the reason why some Trump-supporters like Star Trek? That level of cognitive dissonance certainly peaks my curiosity.
@Leo Peridot , Ferengi have actual "moral" stances that are hard to change. Trump has no solid moral stances on anything aside from "what I think will benefit me the most at this particular moment". As such, the Ferengi are more Trustworthy than Trump.
First of all your willingness to be open to other views is effing awesome. Most commentators channels are my way or the highway situations. And I also really appreciated the points made on the magical negro tropes. I have always been a fan of science fiction growing up but seeing people that looked like me was far and in between and when they did show up they were ineffectual subordinates (Geordi) or magical negroes (Guinan). That’s why the DS9 series was so important to me.