I love most of the Star Trek memes I've seen. Perhaps I should write and sell a weekly Star Trek column Trekkies could actually enjoy.
A recent ScreenRant article proves some entertainment "writers" really shouldn't be writing about Star Trek (or perhaps anything...).
This particular article takes issue with plot holes, as if Star Trek (and Star Wars and all other space entertainment) is real instead of fiction designed specifically to entertain, sell merchandise and rake in zillions of dollars.
Fan comments were humorous, and sometimes even inspiring.
"How many memes prove 'Seinfeld' makes no sense? Or 'The Big Bang' or any of the 'Law & Order' or 'CSI' shows?" - ELS
"Instead people should be brainless and watch the Kardashians and Survivor." - omegaman88
"No doubt from the same people who think televised sports are worthwhile entertainment." - Tragg
"Anyone who objects to miniskirts on beautiful women is just nuts." - JustTheFacts
"Seat belts were not mandatory in 1968, and there were no air bags back then. Computers in the 1960s used blinking lights to display information. The author of this article is too uneducated to be knocking Star Trek." - Freddy
"The main thing that always has bothered me in Star Trek is why they have no fuses or breaker boxes. It seems like having your bridge consoles and other components blow up every time your ship takes a hit to its shields is just plain bad design." - LordofEntropy
"Pretty funny. Star Trek is beloved in spite of its quirks." - John
"As unrealistic as the holodeck is for being far-fetched technologically, I would say it is trumped by the transporter. I mean, think about it: This device disassembles your entire body, literally trillions of atoms, and puts it back together again at a distance. As many have wondered, is that truly YOU still? Or were you killed by the transporter while some clone took your place? The tech of the transporter is under-utilized. How many times has the crew, both TOS and TNG, dealt with some hard-to-stop entity that could have been beamed into a zillion pieces and never reassembled? For example, when they beamed Nomad off the ship, why reassemble it so it can explode? When you've got a big ol' Doomsday device your phasers and photon torpedoes can't seem to damage rampaging through the galaxy, why not just start randomly beaming chunks out of it until you remove something critical?" - Variable 46
"Yeah sure, that whole Data/B-4 in Nemesis was bad. However, let's not forget that gave us Captain Picard itching to use his (never before seen) Star Fleet dune buggy on an alien planet that - how conveniently - also had bad guys driving dune buggies with Goodyear tires." - Drizzlefoot321
How many episodes or sequels could you write after reading the following comment??? How many episodes or sequels could you write based just on the second point??? The fifth point. although accurate, sounds pretty boring, though.
"Tech in almost all science fiction programs is geared to provide a human interaction story revolving around key cast members, and errors advance the story. Plenty of people can point to missing seat belts (without inertia dampening, the acceleration of every Star Trek ship would crush its crew into paste, belt or no belt). The program shows the danger the ship is in by tossing the crew around. I feel the greater error lies in not using tech we have to full effect.
"1: Yes to high tech super computers, yes to Data, yes to probe launchers on ships but no simple robotic assistance. No reconnaissance of landing sites with simple robots. No combat bots in landing parties to look around the corner to prevent getting caught in a firefight, while today's military is working on robotic micro tanks. No robots to preform repairs or work in highly dangerous locations and situations.
"2: No continuous audio and video feed!!! Landing parties call in when they feel like making a report. In reality, command staff would monitor everything the landing party does micromanage them to boot. If you had to drop in on a race that might zero in on people continuously broadcasting, there would be body cams on every member of the landing party! The fleet computer would scan every second of footage for violations of fleet regulations. Every violation of the prime directive or any other regulation would be recorded, and captains would be forced into bureaucratic PC mold.
"3: Few creative uses of the transporter have been allowed. Yes to good and bad Kirk being reunited, but beaming a bomb into an enemy bridge once you drop enemy shields is not allowed.
"4: Direct computer interface in the brain. We are already using artificial limbs, audio and vision implants that tap into the brain (still much work to be done) but outside La Forge's visor and the Borg, Trek avoids implants. We need to see training download into the brain. 'Matrix' style.
"5: Super high tech but a huge crew. In the real future, crew size would be much smaller to save space, power and expenses. Voyager had a holographic doctor; why not a computer-run ship with repair bots and the ability to create several holograms from a large library to intact with any species the ship encounters? A dozen officers could run the bridge and deal with unexpected conditions, and the ship would provide services (dental, medical, etc.) through holograms.
"Still, Trek is good entertainment." - Randy
haha yeah, they try and pick apart it but then they leave trash like reality tv, which has even less reality, alone. Pfffft. The transporter comment is so true.
ReplyDeleteDon't even know where to start.... Perhaps if the show were written by engineers instead of WRITERS, it would be more technologically believable. But then the stories would suck. This is storytelling, after all, not a lesson in logic. We have to take what we can get and enjoy what we can.
ReplyDeleteSome great memes there!