"STAR TREK" Gripes & Pet Peeves (generic) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

Dave, kids in space is one thing, but kids in a military exploration ship is another. We allow children in civilian cars, but not on bombers in Afghanistan.

My general dislike of children just adds to it being a "pet peeve": they're doing something I don't like and for no good reason. On Voyager, they had a that kid with the horns, but it made sense that she was there. Her birth was shown on an episode in the first season. She was there by accident. Though I didn't like her, at least there was some reason for her to be on. There is no reason for brats aboard the Enterprise, though.

I do like the use of current events in Star Trek stories. This is something that's done by countless sci-fi authors, so why not on a TV show?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, remember that the reason for the kids on TNG was a brazen attempt to boost the franchise's popularity among preteens (which is why Wesley was invented). TOS was never a hit with kids, but TNG sure was--and a lot of lucrative product tie-ins resulted.

DaveF: You have some excellent posts here. But my complaint with story arcs that resemble current events is separate from the allegories you cite. Such moralizing was the purpose of the Orwell classic, for example. In the Trek franchise, however, this practice simply reeks of imagination bankruptcy. The writers cannot come up with genuine science fiction, so they dip into current events to revive their lazy imaginations.

 

[DaveF]

In the Trek franchise, however, this practice simply reeks of imagination bankruptcy.

Jack, gotcha.

Mike - understood. I agree that kids on Enterprise or Voyager (Naomi Wilder excepted) wouldn't make sense.

Re: the Universal Translator. Some of my favorite episodes have been the ones when the UT didn't work or wasn't available. I wish they could balance it more. I don't mind its pervasiveness, since it allows other stories to be told (I don't want every episode to be a "We can't understand the alien" show). But I'd enjoy more attempts to consider the challenge of communication, especially across (truly) alien cultures. Idioms and colloquialisms can't be translated solely from the grammatical and phonetic constructs of a language. Absent a native speaker to translate, they require some understanding of history and culture.

 

[Peter McM]

TNG episode "Realm of Fear". Barclay and his "transporter psychosis"--the whole idea of being able to move around inside the transporter, grabbing objects and the like, while you're supposed to be just a mass of disorganized molecules.
That's even worse than TOS "Spock's Brain" and his nicely trimmed head of hair after two surgeries!!
Just remember, though: Star Trek is a lot like sex; even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Exactly, Dave!

In addition to the problems you cite, there is that remaining question about the UT in action: Why the perfect lip synchronization? An alien's "mouth" will move, but in correct timing to English?

Despite these many, many flaws it's amazing how much we love this franchise, eh?

 

[Sherry H.]

TOS was never a hit with kids

Not entirely true. I, for one, loved TOS as a kid. I remember coming in from school when I was around 8 or 9 years old and watching reruns of TOS that were on in the afternoon.
On the whole, I think you're probably right, but I imagine that I can't be the only one who enjoyed Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones and co. as a kid.

 

[DaveF]

Not entirely true. I, for one, loved TOS as a kid

Likewise, though I couldn't see it often. I also vaguely remember reading a book of short stories based on TOS, and I think I saw thw cartoon as well.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, hey, I was a teenager when TOS debuted in September 1966. It was a hit with me. But notice how the series was cancelled just three seasons later?

I think the participants in this thread will be somewhat out of the norm when compared with the "masses." A group of marketers for Paramount confirmed the purpose of "kid angle" in TNG as a means of increasing market reach and maximizing product tie-in opportunities. During the course of the story I was reading (in the Los Angeles Times), the marketing people claimed that TOS simply didn't appeal to children.

Now, Chekov was originally instated, along with his pudding-bowl haircut, to take advantage--of all things--of the current popularity of *gags* The Monkees. A young guy with a similar hairstyle (and, preferably, a foreign accent) would appeal to the adolescent females in the audience, or so went the logic at Desilu.

 

[Dave Miller]

the entire concept of the transporter.

The only thing I hate about the transporter is that whenever they beam down to join someone, they are always facing the right way. I'd love to just once see them beam down w/ their backs to whoever and having to turn around.
Another gripe is that the automatic doors sound like they open and close by some kind of air pressure control. I assume they should be electrical, so seems like an out dated sound effect.
Peace,
DM

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Any problem can be solved in 26 seconds, when you're sufficiently motivated I haven't seen this mentioned yet. Though I enjoy the dramatics close-call, urgent problem-solving, it gets pretty ridiculous. Every fourth episode, some heretofore unsolved problem of Quantum Iso-linear Wormholes is solved in approximately 32 minutes by the engineer; or the Phase Converter is completely re-calibrated in about 15 seconds. I don't know about you, but I've never done anything of great importance in a scant 26 seconds. And problems that are solved that way are usually kludges and have to be done properly later, unlike the perfect-fit ST solutions.

Heh. I do that sort of thing on a daily basis. I've solved enormous problems at the last second countless times with one click of the mouse or the press of a key. Of course it may have something to do with the fact that everyone I work with is a Pacled.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote:

I don't really have a problem with any of the tech and science issues. To me, that's all just window dressing. The space thing is just a setting to me anyway.

Mr. Broadman, PLEASE don't tell us "it's not really science fiction"!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

I guess I didn't make myself completely clear about my peeve over the lack of "tv" in ST.
I'm trying to approach it from a "science-fictional" viewpoint, if you will.
Is the lack of television (privately viewable, presumably programmable entertainment-information---I refuse to say "infotainment"!!!---technology) a LIKELY PROJECTION OF PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGY,especially when so much else in the story settings is just like what we have today, only more advanced?
How plausible is it that people would give up viewing programming (such as old movies) in private, comfortable settings?
How do they get their news? (Babylon 5 has "ISN" (a little too familiar, if you ask me).)
In one Voyager episode the crew is shown viewing some old 3-D movie in a theater aboard ship. Does nobody ever want to see such things over wine in the comfort of those spacious, well-appointed cabins they always have on these ships?
Do they have no contemporary film?
What do they talk about around (their equivalent of) the water cooler (and I don't mean "10 Forward"), when they're not talking tech stuff?
How likely do the participants in this forum, of all places, find such a happenstance?
My contention is that the "viewing" was displaced onto various viewscreens around the ships, especially at the least credible times: during emergencies.
We also got to see old Captain Kirk in that big ol' LaZy-Boy-like seat in TOS looking at the forward viewscreen. And on the Enterprise-D, well, there was Captain Picard surrounded by lounge chairs with little practical function. It was quite a sight to see Deanna Troi dressed in her cleavage-showing blue dress with one of her fancy hair-dos sitting there with most of the other officers in front of the big screen with NOTHING to do (except "sense somesing"). It was like a big ol' living room. "Q" would often pop in for a dance or other tedious trick. Hey, it was a hoot.

 

[Vasanth B]

Great thread people! All of the replies have great depth and detail.

Q" would often pop in for a dance or other tedious trick.

SPEAKING of....I feel that "Q" offered too much leeway for the writers of TNG and promoted imaginative laziness. It was too easy of a plot device to set up moral quandaries, contrived situations, etc.

My second issue...or really just an observation of Star Trek is that I unfortunately get the sense that all the humans are FAR too altruistic and communal in nature to ultimately be plausible. Do we really believe humans will be able to essentially conquer greed en masse? Of course, this is premise is one of the MAJOR reasons for the Star Trek franchise's success...it's very escapist and idealized drama/adventure with a generous dose of technology/sci-fi to keep it believable and interesting.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Quote:

My main point was that not all problems are solvable in real life; that the producers of ST have pandered to Americans' delusions that they are. (And that technology can achieve all that.) Perfect "happiness" and harmony are never to be achieved.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Vasanth B wrote:

SPEAKING of....I feel that "Q" offered too much leeway for the writers of TNG and promoted imaginative laziness. It was too easy of a plot device to set up moral quandaries, contrived situations, etc.

Yes, another "pet peeve". The deus ex machina. I thoroughly dislike any episode of ST where beings "magically" pop in and out and "fix reality" with a snap of their fingers. "Q", "Trelayne" ("Squire of Gothos"), vel sim.. I always found myself thinking of "Endora", the mother(-in-law) from the old Bewitched reruns. Ugh! (Okay, I like "Q Who?", but for the Borg part!)

 

[Brad_V]

I thought Chekov was brought in due to Beatle-mania. But, The Monkees is close enough, too.

I know the translator thing bugs people, but it's only an hour show, and if they had to deal with constant language problems nothing would ever get done before the commercial.

Same deal with Highlander. People would ask the producers why the police are rarely ever shown picking up the pieces of a headless corpse or why a police investigation of the death is never covered, and the producers said because if they did that then they'd never have enough time for the rest of the show.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Mr. Broadman, PLEASE don't tell us "it's not really science fiction"!

Very well, I won't say that, then. Frankly, I don't care. I don't expend much effort trying to figure what piece of entertainment falls into which category. The two authors I read / am reading most recently are Robert Heinlen and Terry Goodkind- one "rea" sci-fi and one fantasy. It's all good, because it's the story that counts for me. I've always considered Trek to be "real" sci-fi, but I've read convincing arguments to the contrary, and in the end, does it really matter? And is it really even possible to make a show that's hard sci-fi last 7 seasons without repeating itself? That seems like an unecessarily way to limit a show's story telling options.

Because of this, I have no problem accepting Q, who magically pops in and out and can do everything. The "scientific" explanation is that his species is so advanced and evolved that they transcend the physical and command a deeper understanding of the matter and energy, and can therefore manipulate it. Or something. That's good enough for me.

That's why my peeves aren't tech related. I agree with those talking about the non-desire for materialistic things or power of control, and now that I'm thinking about it, it may be my biggest. A story has impact when it brings the audience face to face with human nature. Star Trek usually ignores it in their main characters, or at least important parts of it.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Just two to get started before I bring out the big ones:
Do you need just one transporter or one at each end? : Star Trek: TMP is famous for this quandry. During TOS, most of the time you could beam to/from anywhere with one transporter but occassionally you needed one at both ends, ala ST:TMP. If the Enterprise's transporters were out then why don't they just beam them directly to/from with just the base station's transporter?
Is there or is there not money in the future? : Many episodes and movies contradicted each other about money in the future.
Chuck Anstey

 

[Ted Lee]

totally fun thread!
my favorite gripe (already touched on) has got to be:
Enterprise: The Universe's Most Flexible Ship!
i mean really...is it just me or can they convert/modify/create/customize/adjust/fine-tune just about anything on that ship? i can't think of how many episodes i've seen where they do sommething like that.
pretty soon they're going to be turning the food creator doohickey into the warp-core turbo enhancement thing-a-ma-jig.
but it's still a great show!

 

[CharlesD]

My biggest pet peeve is the Exploding Control Console. Why on Earth would a LCD touch panel control panel explode when the mechanism it controls gets hit? Do they have a "plasma conduit" running from the Warp Core directly to the controling panel so when the Warp Core gets damged it zaps the technician controling it? Or are they just wired with explosives so that the technician has an extra incentive not to do anything wrong?
I want to hear some "Klingon Speed Metal"