Wrath of Khan discussion

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think over time, Roddenberry idealized Trek to such a degree in his mind that he began seeing it as a flawless society. Things like the "no conflict" and "a child wouldn't grieve the death of his mother" seem out of touch with the show about people with all their human (and non-human) frailties making a better universe. Compare the "no conflict" rule with something like "We're not going to kill...today." The former seems to indicate universal consensus is possible on everything without argument, while the latter indicates that we have to worked hard to keep things from getting out of hand when conflict arises.

My idea was that this all came about in the midst of US and Soviet tensions. The show's money was backed by a stable dichotomy of good and bad where all you had to do was replace America with Humanity and you can preach all you want without questions. When the cold war dissolves though, as far as themes, it's like you can't rely on the happenstance of your nation to be a paragon of good.

In my idea, Q in Trek represents American imperialism, with the first episode of TNG being about Picard rebuking that idea and aiming for a more rational idealism.

[cdrood]

Really enjoyed this more serious look at The Wrath of Khan, while this isn't my personal top Star Trek film, it's still a great film.

I do love how this was the first truly nuanced piece of Star Trek that came about.

I sort of see what you mean, while The Original Series did have nuanced episodes that still hold up today, The Wrath of Khan's overall dark and melancholy tone serves the themes of the film, while the series's general 60's Sci-fi vibe could lead people to gloss over those nuanced episodes.

Being a DS9 fan I'd say that show was made in its spirit, just as it was made in the spirit of human flawed-ness that made TOS so endearing (and strained TMP and early TNG).

Any future reformation of Trek I think will come from reconnecting to it.

Agreed, I like when Star Trek shows that humanity isn't perfect but trying to be better, and not only was Wrath of Khan willing to show Admiral Kirk being flawed like with him not going taking Saavik's advice to raise shields, and his arc of him getting older and feeling vulnerable about it, but showing that Kirk was now older not only showed that imperfect part of humanity, but properly showed that the Star Trek universe was a breathing world that changed and evolved, that characters weren't suck in the same places doing the same things for years at a time and never changing.

When Star Trek does this like with here and Deep Space Nine, it really feels like a story that's meaningful, with drama, conflict, and consequences, with something to say, while with things like the first season of The Next Generation that shows everyone is perfect and there's no conflicts, it feels less like a story and more like a brochure.

I'd say TMP definitely showed flaws. Kirk's ego and nostalgia for his past drive the first half of the movie. Spock's denial of half his heritage drives him. It was just so stretched out and everything was so subdued most of the time, it's hard to connect to emotionally. Spock waking up after the V'Ger mind meld is probably one of the better moments because he's finally willing to reconnect with his friends again and he's realized his mistakes. Kirk, on the other hand, never acknowledges his dick move in taking command away from Decker. You get the feeling if any other ship was in range, he wouldn't have pushed for command. I kind of think WoK put in the Kirk/Spock command scene to show the right way of doing it.

[cdrood]

I feel that Roddenberry belief that Starfleet is not military is at best childish at worst deliberately obtuse.

It's based on Horatio Hornblower but not military!

And that's the thing. "Military" isn't all a single thing. Even today, the vast majority of military jobs don't involve combat at all. The British Navy did more than fight wars. They performed exploration, diplomatic, and commercial tasks as well. It doesn't mean they weren't military. Today, we've more or less divided those functions to the Navy, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine, and private organizations.

Today, we live in a world of high specialization where military functions are more narrow than they were in the past. Ages of exploration with great distances and limited communications means you require a more "Jack of All Trades" approach to a military.

So Starfleet IS military, but not the same as how we view the military, particularly modern navies, today.

[cdrood]

TWOK is one of the only times we see the Miranda class actually doing what it is meant to be doing and that is an all-purpose workhorse. It is meant to be a space taxi/truck to assist out of the way outposts.

Later shows would cement the Miranda with a bad reputation as being made of paper but that's because it was never meant to be a frontline craft. It is only heavily armed because out of the way outposts tend to attract pirates in the Trekverse.

I always liked the design. Clearly similar enough to know who's ship it is, but it seems far more functional. The compact design just seems like it's more practical, although less visually impressive.

[Thebestoftherest]

I think over time, Roddenberry idealized Trek to such a degree in his mind that he began seeing it as a flawless society. Things like the "no conflict" and "a child wouldn't grieve the death of his mother" seem out of touch with the show about people with all their human (and non-human) frailties making a better universe. Compare the "no conflict" rule with something like "We're not going to kill...today." The former seems to indicate universal consensus is possible on everything without argument, while the latter indicates that we have to worked hard to keep things from getting out of hand when conflict arises.

My idea was that this all came about in the midst of US and Soviet tensions. The show's money was backed by a stable dichotomy of good and bad where all you had to do was replace America with Humanity and you can preach all you want without questions. When the cold war dissolves though, as far as themes, it's like you can't rely on the happenstance of your nation to be a paragon of good.

In my idea, Q in Trek represents American imperialism, with the first episode of TNG being about Picard rebuking that idea and aiming for a more rational idealism.

Actually while this is unintentionally, Q could represent human of the past with all it flaws and problems, meanwhile Picard is representing the sterile lifeless humanity that much grow to accept their flaws.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think over time, Roddenberry idealized Trek to such a degree in his mind that he began seeing it as a flawless society. Things like the "no conflict" and "a child wouldn't grieve the death of his mother" seem out of touch with the show about people with all their human (and non-human) frailties making a better universe. Compare the "no conflict" rule with something like "We're not going to kill...today." The former seems to indicate universal consensus is possible on everything without argument, while the latter indicates that we have to worked hard to keep things from getting out of hand when conflict arises.

My idea was that this all came about in the midst of US and Soviet tensions. The show's money was backed by a stable dichotomy of good and bad where all you had to do was replace America with Humanity and you can preach all you want without questions. When the cold war dissolves though, as far as themes, it's like you can't rely on the happenstance of your nation to be a paragon of good.

In my idea, Q in Trek represents American imperialism, with the first episode of TNG being about Picard rebuking that idea and aiming for a more rational idealism.

Actually while this is unintentionally, Q could represent human of the past with all it flaws and problems, meanwhile Picard is representing the sterile lifeless humanity that much grow to accept their flaws.

I have no choice to concede on this because the first 4 episodes of TNG are sufficiently the least familiar I am with across Trek. Otherwise apart from him throwing Enterprise at the Borg in S2, it's not very easy for me to not interpret him as an indictment from what I can remember about the episode. I'm fairly certain it just amounts to a different execution of the concept, much like the whole show was. And your idea could be 100% it.

[Fianna]

EDIT: Never mind

[AndrewGPaul]

My impression from watching The Wrath of Khan is that the Reliant isn’t anything different to the Enterprise. It’s a Mercedes E-class to the Enterprise’ BMW 5-Series, not a Ford Focus estate. If you assume the nacelles and saucer are the same size, then yes it’s smaller because it doesn’t have the additional cigar-shaped hull, but other than that it’s depicted as roughly equivalent. Even the mission it’s doing for the Genesis project isn’t something the Enterprise wouldn’t do if need be.

Why build Genesis when Picard’s ship spends seven years going from one village to another? Perhaps at the time of TWOK most of the suitable planets nearby were already claimed, but by the next century they were able to expand further, or terraforming technology has improved (as a refinement of Genesis, perhaps?)

When the Genesis device was set off, I assume the star you see is the one that Regula is orbiting. They travelled from Regula to the nebula in real space rather than at warp, so it must have been nearby. I can bend astrophysics enough to believe that extremely dense nebula was in the same system.

While I agree that there are more aliens in Starfleet than the makeup budget allows us to see, I still think the Federation is human-dominated. The very idea seems to be a human one, and when we hear where a Vulcan, Andorian or Betazed is from, it’s usually Vulcan, Andor or Batazed, whereas humans tend to come from Gobbledygook Five. They usually only come from Earth if the Enterprise is actually at Earth.

[RobbyB1982]

By TNG they had spent another 100 years exploring, and expanding, and maximum warp had gone from 7 to 9, plus they'd refined delithium to last longer, so it makes perfect sense that they'd have more habitable worlds available.

But even with the entire universe available... if we here on earth could Mars to be habitable, isn't its cool to have a sister habitable planet an hour away instead of weeks or months? The more places you can make habitable the better for the local system.

[TGLS]

By TNG they had spent another 100 years exploring, and expanding, and maximum warp had gone from 7 to 9, plus they'd refined delithium to last longer, so it makes perfect sense that they'd have more habitable worlds available.

Well, either that or the events in the Undiscovered Country led the Federation to feel secure enough to resume expansion, making Genesis unnecessary.