Star Wars / Star Trek Discussion (SciFi In General)

[MusicallyInspired]

Right?? What a waste of time that whole Xindi nonsense was. Never heard of them before in any Star Trek (or did we?) and they plop them in Enterprise as if they were always around? Nonsense. The Romulan stuff was just getting interesting. Romulans are my favourite race.

[Collector]

We have known of that war since the very first episode with the Romulans back in the first season of TOS. Balance of Terror was one of the best TOS episodes. It would have been nice to see the Romulan War unfold. BTW, I assume that you know that the very first Romulan shown was played by Mark Leonard in his first appearance in the franchise.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yep. When I first saw that episode as a kid it took me off guard because I had already seen the TOS movies and the episode where both Spock's parents arrive on the Enterprise. But it was a great episode. It's interesting how the Romulans were more Klingon-like in TOS and the Klingon's more Romulan-like and then they swapped them (rightly) in the TOS movies and TNG era.

[Collector]

A lot of the fans have complained about the swapping of roles of the two species, but it is not quite a swap. While the Klingons became more honor bound and less manipulative and underhanded, the transition of the Romulans is more logical. They were originally based on Roman with its military culture, but became more Byzantine. The became scheming, obsessed with intrigue and machinations. Fitting since that is what happened to the Roman Empire, at least the Eastern Empire.

[MusicallyInspired]

That's interesting. I thought that it was explained in TNG era that in the lore history the Vulcans and Romulans diverged and the Vulcans dealt with their dangerous passions and emotions by pouring all their energy into logic to suppress emotion while the Romulans dealt with it by pouring all their energy into spying, cunning, and subterfuge as an outlet for emotion. If that's true than it's a retcon of the original TOS Roman/Byzantine explanation. But it also could be just some fan theory I read or heard somewhere. They're both cool explanations.

[Collector]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Both phases of the Romulans would have required emotions and a not so high priority on logic. It is obvious that ambition is prominent as early as Balance of Terror (S1-E14).

The Vulcan/Romulan split was suggested in Balance of Terror with the very first view of a Romulan, again played by Mark Leonard, with the near identical physical features between the two races, bringing into question Spock's (divided?) loyalties.

[MusicallyInspired]

That always seemed weird to me. Maybe a product of its time (storytelling-wise, not culture-wise), but everyone questioning Spock's loyalty just because an enemy looks like his species doesn't make any sense for an enlightened Federation society. Then again, very little in TOS resembled what the idea of the Federation eventually became. Kirk often spoke of how he was a "military man" in some episodes and how he wasn't one for diplomacy and spoke as if all of Starfleet was the same way. Much of Star Trek had to develop and fully realize its own scope in terms of lore.

[Collector]

It may have been a while since you have seen Balance of Terror. It was just one man that questioned Spock's motives. He was a bridge officer that had a deep, blinding hatred of the Romulans because of the price his family had to pay back during the Romulan war.

Then again, very little in TOS resembled what the idea of the Federation eventually became. Kirk often spoke of how he was a "military man" in some episodes and how he wasn't one for diplomacy and spoke as if all of Starfleet was the same way. Much of Star Trek had to develop and fully realize its own scope in terms of lore.

Certainly the Federation and Star Trek itself was still being defined during the original series, but it still fits canon as the Federation was still growing and evolving then as any nation or society does. There is even references to this in the later series, so it is not a breaking of continuity of the future history. That Kirk saw himself as a military man has to be put within the light of the early defensive wars in the infancy of the Federation were within or near living memory, both Axanar and the Romulan War. By the time of TNG these were conflicts of a fading past and the Federation's greatest rival had become an ally.

This is why canon is important to Trek fans. It is a tight and well thought-out future history that holds up well to scrutiny. It explains a lot in terms of the characters' motivations and reasoning.

[goatmeal]

Enterprise was....alright.
...
The third season is more out of character for enlightened post-WW3 Star Trek humanity than DS9 was by going on a war mission in the heart of an unexplored area of space to take revenge on an alien species called the Xindi who Starfleet thinks killed some humans or something. Totally bizarre and strange and I hated almost every episode.

Oh, they DEFINITELY killed some beings -- millions (including Trip's sister) at the end of the Season 2 finale; the initial Xindi weapon cut a trench into the Earth from Florida to Venezuela, incinerating everything (and everyone) in its path.

Of course, it turns out that the Xindi were unwitting pawns caught up in the Temporal Cold War; fearing that they would eventually lose in the future, they decided to attack in the present under the doctrine of a pre-emptive first strike.

IIRC, the inspiration for the third season was the 9-11 attack. Unfortunately, it was a continuation of the underlying plot line that was the "Temporal Cold Wars" -- the ill-conceived and wholly unnecessary millstone that was hung around the series' neck for the first 3 seasons.

[Collector]

Enterprise could have been so much more if they had kept it grounded within established Trek, but as is, it was at least it was not part of the Jar Jar timeline.

[MusicallyInspired]

You're right about Balance of Terror, I did misremember that. Still, it wasn't a rare thing for crew members to get frustrated with Spock to the point of prejudice just because he was a cold and emotionless Vulcan who didn't care about the lives of his crewmates. Like Galileo Seven. (I'm not talking about Bones, obviously that was just friendly banter underneath the masks) Still, it did make sense especially after Enterprise came out and nearly all humans despised Vulcans who acted all superior and kept trying to make humans embrace logic like them. It wasn't as bad in TOS, but that could well have been a holdover as well. Something else that, by the time TNG came along, was also in the distant fading past. Vulcans were super annoying in Enterprise.

It was also a bit strange how the Vulcans weren't entirely embracing of logic at all during Enterprise until that one episode or two-parter. It's been so long since I've seen it now. But they had a different political structure and ideology than what would eventually take hold by TOS and TNG. I can't recall the details now.

I loved that one Enterprise episode with Seth Macfarlane in it who was low-ranking crew member without any important lines or role at all but all the bridge crew/main cast kept giving him a dressing down and getting frustrated with him because he kept screwing everything up. lol

[Collector]

A three parter; The Forge, Awakening, and Kir'Shara. They had drifted from the teachings of Surak. The last episode of the three was about the Kir'Shara, a device that contained the writings of Surak, which allowed Vulcans to reembrace his logic again, which also had the effect of transforming the government (the Vulcan High Command was disbanded as a result). It was one of my favorite story lines of the series. It showed how the Vulcans became as we knew them in TOS. Fun fact, the T'Pau in that trilogy was the same character as the one in Amok Time

[DeadPoolX]

Maybe it seems silly, but one of the things that pissed me off about the JJ Abrams ST universe is the phasers. I remember seeing them pop up as gun batteries that behave like rapid-fire blasters instead of the traditional phaser emitters or arrays that fire off long, continuous beams of energy.

Plus, I hated the fact that Kirk got his captaincy so quickly. In TOS, Kirk was considered the "youngest captain in Starfleet's history" at the age of 34, but I guess anyone over the age of 25 is "too old."

In the first JJ ST movie, Kirk goes from cadet (who got busted for cheating and forced to appear for a disciplinary hearing) to captain? That's insane.

To make matters worse, in Star Trek (every show and film, regardless of which universe it's in) no one's the captain of a ship unless they literally hold the rank of captain, which is NOT how it's donein ANY real world navy, especially the US Navy which is what Starfleet was initially based on.

In the USN, any unrestricted line officer can be the captain of a ship as being "the captain" is all about position, not rank. In other words, if a lieutenant was made the captain of a ship, he'd be referred to as "Captain" by his crew, regardless of his rank. You often see lieutenant commanders and commanders in-charge of destroyers or submarines, and despite their rank, they are called "Captain" by everyone on board because position takes precedence over rank.

I realize that concept would likely be confusing for viewers, but even so, it's a little annoying, especially when that means Kirk (in the JJ Universe) somehow went from ensign straight to captain. That's a jump from O-1 straight to O-6. That would never happen, not even in wartime when brevit promotions frequently occur.

[Collector]

To make matters worse, in Star Trek (every show and film, regardless of which universe it's in) no one's the captain of a ship unless they literally hold the rank of captain, which is NOT how it's done in ANY real world navy, especially the US Navy which is what Starfleet was initially based on.

Not so. In the TOS episode The Doomsday Machine the Constellation was commanded by Commodore Matt Decker (played by William Windom). In an episode of DS9 it is noted that tradition is to call the commander of a vessel be addressed as "captain" regardless of actual rank. There were other episodes where ships were captained by officers of the rank of commander. However, I can see where you got that impression.

[DeadPoolX]

To make matters worse, in Star Trek (every show and film, regardless of which universe it's in) no one's the captain of a ship unless they literally hold the rank of captain, which is NOT how it's done in ANY real world navy, especially the US Navy which is what Starfleet was initially based on.

Not so. In the TOS episode The Doomsday Machine the Constellation was commanded by Commodore Matt Decker (played by William Windom). In an episode of DS9 it is noted that tradition is to call the commander of a vessel be addressed as "captain" regardless of actual rank. There were other episodes where ships were captained by officers of the rank of commander. However, I can see where you got that impression.

Okay, well, that's good to know. I never watched DS9, so I'm glad one of the shows actually addressed that.

Regardless, it still doesn't address the dumb decision to make Kirk the captain of a heavy cruiser given his inexperience and previously-held low rank. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised when there are TV shows where 24 year-olds hold multiple PhDs and are considered the "experts in their field,"

That said, the funny thing about the rank of Commodore in the USN is it was replaced with "Rear Admiral Lower Half." No, I'm not joking, and yes, that's one of the dumbest-sounding ranks ever.

Commodore still technically exists in the USN, but it's an honorary title for senior captains who're in command of numerous operations groups. Basically, it's saying "We don't want to promote you and pay you more, but here's a snazzy title and a lot more responsibility. Good luck!"