Star Trek Wankery

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7747
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by nicole » 08 Aug 2017, 21:12

I just watched that episode a couple nights ago. Had completely forgotten that scene.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Aug 2017, 11:11

It did not occur to me until just now that the kid who plays Picard's Uncle Rene in "Family" is the same one who plays the de-aged Picard in "Rascals".
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22029
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 25 Aug 2017, 13:03

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 11:11
It did not occur to me until just now that the kid who plays Picard's Uncle Rene in "Family" is the same one who plays the de-aged Picard in "Rascals".
Didn't occur to me either, until just now when you told me.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8991
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 25 Aug 2017, 13:49

The Wrath of Khan will be back in some theatres on Sept 10.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22029
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 25 Aug 2017, 14:45

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 13:49
The Wrath of Khan will be back in some theatres on Sept 10.
Some theatres? What about the needs of the many?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 25 Aug 2017, 16:28

Despite knowing, intellectually, how utterly fuck-awful season 1 of TNG is, somehow the sheer magnitude of the awfulness always manages to surprise me when I actually watch such an episode.

Last night I watched part of "The Neutral Zone" -- the Enterprise discovers an ancient spaceship containing three cryogenically frozen people from the late 20th century -- and Dr. Crusher gives Picard an infodump about why late 20th century people did such a thing: "People feared dying. It terrified them."

Ha! Silly ridiculous old-fashioned primitives, with their superstitious "I don't want to die" attitudes!
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22029
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 25 Aug 2017, 16:48

Jennifer wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 16:28
Despite knowing, intellectually, how utterly fuck-awful season 1 of TNG is, somehow the sheer magnitude of the awfulness always manages to surprise me when I actually watch such an episode.

Last night I watched part of "The Neutral Zone" -- the Enterprise discovers an ancient spaceship containing three cryogenically frozen people from the late 20th century -- and Dr. Crusher gives Picard an infodump about why late 20th century people did such a thing: "People feared dying. It terrified them."

Ha! Silly ridiculous old-fashioned primitives, with their superstitious "I don't want to die" attitudes!
Wasn't that the one with Roddenberry's straw-man capitalist whose life lost all meaning when he found out there wasn't money anymore?
So much :roll:
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Aug 2017, 17:18

So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 25 Aug 2017, 17:32

Warren wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 16:48
Jennifer wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 16:28
Despite knowing, intellectually, how utterly fuck-awful season 1 of TNG is, somehow the sheer magnitude of the awfulness always manages to surprise me when I actually watch such an episode.

Last night I watched part of "The Neutral Zone" -- the Enterprise discovers an ancient spaceship containing three cryogenically frozen people from the late 20th century -- and Dr. Crusher gives Picard an infodump about why late 20th century people did such a thing: "People feared dying. It terrified them."

Ha! Silly ridiculous old-fashioned primitives, with their superstitious "I don't want to die" attitudes!
Wasn't that the one with Roddenberry's straw-man capitalist whose life lost all meaning when he found out there wasn't money anymore?
So much :roll:
Oddly enough, that part of the story didn't bother me too much -- at least, it didn't bother me much by first-season-craptastic standards -- especially since Offenhaus the uber-capitalist, for all his assholery throughout the episode, does at least prove to have some genuinely useful insights for dealing with the Romulans who were that story's main antagonists.

Indeed, had that episode been handled less ham-handedly, it could've been a very interesting bit of sociological sci-fi. Of course, I say this as someone who recently (within the last month) read a TNG novel where Offenhaus appears as a major character -- according to that book, he goes on to be the Federation ambassador to either the Ferengi or some primitive-by-Federation-standards planet doing business with the Ferengi, because his money-grubbing 20th-century mindset makes him far better suited for this than any other Federation citizen, and at one point he said to Picard something to the effect of "You 24th-century Federation people do not understand what it's like to actually need money, and fear the lack of it, because no money means you and your family can't eat, or have a place to live, or get basic medical care if you need it -- sure, you can read about it in your history books, but you don't actually know what it's like. I do."

Had that episode taken that kind of approach, rather than just be a bunch of cartoony "1990s people sure do suck by Federation standards, ha ha ha!" punchlines, it really could have been interesting: instead of strawman irritants who suck even by 1990s standards, have the time refugees be the sort of people whom actual 1990s viewers would find understandable and sympathetic, while at the same time showing how society has changed so much that it's equally understandable and sympathetic why 2300s starship personnel find these people baffling and annoying....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Aug 2017, 22:19

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8991
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 25 Aug 2017, 22:35

You guys watch a show about a utopian future and are surprised that it has utopian stuff in it.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Aug 2017, 22:38

Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it. But we've also seen plenty of characters risking death. Indeed, every day on a starship is a gamble with oblivion. And it doesn't seem strange to me that people who live long and fulfilling lives in a utopian culture would be marginally less afraid of death than we are, nor that they would judge somewhat harshly a more primitive iteration of their culture of which they have limited knowledge.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8991
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 25 Aug 2017, 22:45

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:35
You guys watch a show about a utopian future and are surprised that it has utopian stuff in it.
I mean, it is supposed to be a brighter future. It would be odd if they didn't distinguish themselves from us, both in ways that are silly and in ways that are legitimately unflattering to us.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 25 Aug 2017, 23:40

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it. But we've also seen plenty of characters risking death.
We have people willing to risk death now, in our current for-reals society. And had such people waaay back in the 1990s, too.
And it doesn't seem strange to me that people who live long and fulfilling lives in a utopian culture would be marginally less afraid of death than we are,
To the point of not even mourning or missing dead loved ones, as Eric pointed out? (Which, of course, was only a season one conceit for the most part -- later seasons, plus Deep Space Nine, demonstrated that yes, even these advanced-technology people mourned their dead and generally preferred not to join their ranks if they could avoid it -- though then, as now, there are some people willing to risk death, or even die, if necessary, for a greater cause.)

Plus, Crusher and Picard in that episode were not "marginally less afraid of death" -- they were incredulous at the very idea of having any such fear.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Aug 2017, 23:48

Jennifer wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:40
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it. But we've also seen plenty of characters risking death.
We have people willing to risk death now, in our current for-reals society. And had such people waaay back in the 1990s, too.
And it doesn't seem strange to me that people who live long and fulfilling lives in a utopian culture would be marginally less afraid of death than we are,
To the point of not even mourning or missing dead loved ones, as Eric pointed out? (Which, of course, was only a season one conceit for the most part -- later seasons, plus Deep Space Nine, demonstrated that yes, even these advanced-technology people mourned their dead and generally preferred not to join their ranks if they could avoid it -- though then, as now, there are some people willing to risk death, or even die, if necessary, for a greater cause.)

Plus, Crusher and Picard in that episode were not "marginally less afraid of death" -- they were incredulous at the very idea of having any such fear.
They made no mention of not mourning or fearing death in the episode. Crusher was incredulous that people were so terrified of death the same way that we would be incredulous that cavemen were so terrified of thunderstorms. As I implied above, there is a continuum of aversion to death, from abject terror to enthusiastic embrace. 24th century Federation humans are probably closer to the stoic acceptance centerpoint than 20th century Americans. As evidenced by the fact that they don't cryofreeze incurables in the hopes that future technology can revive them.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Aug 2017, 23:53

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Aug 2017, 23:55

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:35
You guys watch a show about a utopian future and are surprised that it has utopian stuff in it.
No, we watched a show about a brighter future during a period in which the creator had gone up his own ass about how perfect a fictional setting was. (Kinda like Culture fans.)

TOS was about humanity's ability to progress. ("We won't kill...today.") Early TNG was about having reached perfection. Later TNG and the other shows blew that off (aside from DS9, which dissected it and shook its head) and went back to the idea of progress.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 26 Aug 2017, 00:04

Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 26 Aug 2017, 00:33

Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?
Off the top of my head, I recall the episode with the Stone Age Vulcans who think Picard is a god -- yeah, Picard was willing to die if necessary to dissuade them, but that other scientist guy was outraged at the thought that, in the name of the Prime Directive, they had to throttle back their search for the injured and probably dying scientist lest they further contaminate the primitive culture. And he did mourn his wife when she died -- in fact, that is what finally convinced the Vulcan tribal chieftain that no, you people aren't gods after all, just people who know how to do lots of things we can't.
Crusher was incredulous that people were so terrified of death the same way that we would be incredulous that cavemen were so terrified of thunderstorms.
I know -- hence the point of my original complaint about the suckitude of season one compared to later seasons.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 26 Aug 2017, 01:04

At Tasha's funeral they honored even as they lamented their loss and their anger that she died for nothing. When Geordi and Ro died they threw a big swinging party to celebrate their lives.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 26 Aug 2017, 01:12

Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 01:04
At Tasha's funeral they honored even as they lamented their loss and their anger that she died for nothing. When Geordi and Ro died they threw a big swinging party to celebrate their lives.
IIRC, the latter was Riker's idea, because he was a jazz fan and thus decided to do an old-fashioned New Orleans Mardi Gras-style jazz funeral -- an idea he borrowed from our time, and earlier eras. (IOW, not a sign that in the future -- outside of execrable season one -- people are somehow too evolved to be afraid of death, or mourn those they lost. Even people who go to jazz funerals today still mourn their lost loved ones.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 26 Aug 2017, 02:33

Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?

You're trying to archly demand proof of aspects of the show people have been talking about for thirty years from a variety of viewpoints, from the writers to the critics to the fanficcers. Dude, go watch some Star Trek.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 26 Aug 2017, 13:31

Eric the .5b wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 02:33
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 17:18
So there's no difference in degree between not wanting X and being terrified of X?
We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?

You're trying to archly demand proof of aspects of the show people have been talking about for thirty years from a variety of viewpoints, from the writers to the critics to the fanficcers. Dude, go watch some Star Trek.
I have watched Star Trek, and none of what you're describing is in the text. What you're really saying is Dude go read some apocrypha.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 26 Aug 2017, 13:32

Jennifer wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 01:12
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 01:04
At Tasha's funeral they honored even as they lamented their loss and their anger that she died for nothing. When Geordi and Ro died they threw a big swinging party to celebrate their lives.
IIRC, the latter was Riker's idea, because he was a jazz fan and thus decided to do an old-fashioned New Orleans Mardi Gras-style jazz funeral -- an idea he borrowed from our time, and earlier eras. (IOW, not a sign that in the future -- outside of execrable season one -- people are somehow too evolved to be afraid of death, or mourn those they lost. Even people who go to jazz funerals today still mourn their lost loved ones.)
The memorial party for Geordi and Ro was Data's idea.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20639
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 26 Aug 2017, 15:53

Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 13:31
Eric the .5b wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 02:33
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19

We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?

You're trying to archly demand proof of aspects of the show people have been talking about for thirty years from a variety of viewpoints, from the writers to the critics to the fanficcers. Dude, go watch some Star Trek.
I have watched Star Trek, and none of what you're describing is in the text. What you're really saying is Dude go read some apocrypha.
If you've seen post-season one TNG episodes, then surely you noticed they abandoned that contemptuous "Pfft, can you believe those people were terrified of death?" attitude which inspired my original eye-rolling comment here?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest