At the time it aired, I would agree with you. However, there seems to be a much larger appreciation for the show now that a significant amount of time has passed. I, for one, was too young to have watched the show back then. I first watched it in 2017 and I immediately fell in love with it.
I couldn't make it past that insanely stupid theme song! Who's bright idea was that!!! It's like having Cindy Lauper's "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" as the theme song for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"!
Just like DS9 it's getting a bit of a revival these days and people are coming around to it. I mean, it has Jeffrey Combs as Commander Shran. What's not to like?
The DS9 show runners originally wanted to end the series showing it as a televised version of Benny Russell's stories but higher ups nixed it because it would have invalidated the whole franchise.
Which I think was good. Because Star Trek is meant to be inspirational. It's real. We live together in the future. Having a current person saying "Hopefully one day" just undermines it.
DS9 and the rest of Star Trek is actually part of the Tommy Westphall Universe shown on St. Elsewhere. Because practically everything else is. I'm serious. Tommy's dad, Donald Westphall and two other doctors visited Sam Malone’s bar from Cheers; Cheers introduced Frasier Crane, of Frasier; John Hemingway of The John Larroquette Show once called into Frasier’s talk show; The John Larroquette Show once mentioned Yoyodyne, which besides being a part of Buckaroo Banzai, is also mentioned on certain ship dedication plaques that are shown on TNG, and Yoyodyne had an office on DS9 as well.
TOS had the different type of control panels it did because it was made in the 1960s. TNG was made in the late '80s and 90s, so it had a touch screen interface which was then co-opted by following series. A non-trek example of space-opera controls being consistent with when the show was made can be seen in all the joysticks used in "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" because it came out in the late 1970s.
Consistency: the Cytherians (from one NextGen ep) send you a mental message, wait for you at the center of the galaxy, and communicate through bighead avatars once you get there. I, for one, infer that the false Godhead guy in Final Frontier is a Cytherian malcontent and/or criminal element. Inconsistency: for the NextGen crew, traveling charted space from end to end would get them across less than a fifth of the Galaxy. (That's why Janeway took so long to get home. She had almost all five fifths to travel.) So why was it so quick for Kirk to get Sybok to the galactic center? This seemed like if a modern terrorist held NASA hostage and demanded to be flown to Pluto! 🙃
Sci Fi "gods" are mostly gnostic false gods. Aeons and Archons that created a corrupt copy of pure creation and trapped the descendents of Adama (pure spiritual man) inside their simulation. Enlightenment is to see past the various levels of the corrupt universe to reach oneness with the true creator in perfection. The one described on Isiah's vision. This is the religion of Socrates and Plato that came down to the Gnostics as pagans. When they heard the messianic story from 1st cen Jewish Christians....early accounts of Yeshua seemed to fit the Platonist ideas they already had from the metaphor of The Cave and Plato's theoretical Virtuous Man (book 2 of The Republic) born without evil. The virtuous man had to be tortured, stripped and killed on a wooden post outside the city to prove he was without fundamental evil....as all men are fundamentally evil...they only fake goodness. This is also in The Creatures of Promethius myth. Another popular SF trope is Arian Christianity (JWs, Mormons, Partialists, 7th Day, etc...) where Jesus is just a human incarnation of Angel Michael a brother to Angel Lucifer....both with different rival concepts of how to run the universe for their dad....and the fate of man. You see a lot of this in The Doctor and The Master in New Who and some Old Who. Cropped up in the last episode of TAS. Religious heresy is great fun for atheist SF writers.
Not everyone is gay (very few on screen). But Kirk and Spock clearly have a romantic (and occasionally sexual) relationship Not everyone has to be straight...
People are addicted to porn, and it has fried their brains. The British chick with 10 layers of makeup caked on, probably isn't capable of registering loving your friend like a brother. I love my best best friend like a brother, but I don't feel the need to replace my wife.
Sorry, but the bit about Kirk and Spock being lovers is utter nonsense. Two men (or women) can have a deep bond without being sexually attracted, etc. Not all guys are football-friends only, some have closer meaningful relationships. It crazy to try to apply a modern revisionist theory through your constructed lens of so called diversity.
@@SportyMabamba do u know how to read? You are making throwaway statements by saying that I’m projecting. I stated that the assumption that the characters of kirk and Spock must be gay or have a sexual relationship because they have a bond is a leap of logic. Spock would be offended because the assumption is illogical. Myself I wouldn’t care if they were in a gay or sexual, therefore I’m not offended nor threatened. Use your brain, not your agenda, sport.
@@jameshutchins8155 And here you come to the crux of what bothers me about Spirk theory. I really would not have cared if they were lovers. And I’m sure that the characters, as written, have come to deeply love and trust one another. But these days, there is no acknowledgement that love does not = sexual desire. At the extreme, all LOVE is being categorized as sexual, in some cases even towards family members and children. And OMG if touching is involved! Kinda sad for a species that craves love AND physical contact!
@@conniepayne4425 Well said Connie and good points. I hate using the term agenda, but when someone just tells another in a conversation that they are ‘projecting’ it is their way to delegitimize the other and shut down thought and conversation so that they can protect their narrow agenda. Anyways… this is all just story telling and we shouldn’t get too serious about it, but also not apply or impose our world view on characters just because it makes us be more comfortable in our pants. ;)
@@jameshutchins8155 "..more comfortable in our pants." *triggered* Did you just assume my legwear????!?!???!? Seriously, there are members of many fandoms who spend way too much time arguing over the sexual preferences of fictional characters, from all sides of the sexual spectrum.
Sorry but no. 1. As you point out yourself in the same bit, T'hy'la also means "brother", not just "lover" or "loved one". It's a word with multiple meanings like "shalom" in Hebrew. It's all based on context, and Kirk and Spock are more like brothers than lovers, and saying otherwise sounds like trying to justify fanfic writers' homoerotic fantasies. Not that the fantasies are bad, but it doesn't fit the characters, not like it fits Stamets and Culber. But saying t'hy'la also means "lover" does not automatically mean "Yes, Kirk and Spock are lovers". They aren't brother, friend and lover ALL AT THE SAME TIME. 2. I know the UK and America are separated by a common language but those apostrophes in "T'hy'la" are there for a reason. They break up syllables. It's Ti-hai-lah, or Tee-hai-lah. You don't blend the T and H together like you do for thought, thick, thumb.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds how does being more specfic in pointing out the failures make those failures less impactful? Sounds like you're a Trump freak that hates getting called out for being a dipshit so you're trying to call someone out for being detailed
Actually, the same source that first gave us t'hy'la meaning friend, brother, or lover also shot down that theory. Kirk himself denies it in strenuous terms, making a point of saying he prefers a woman, and that he would never choose a lover who only came into heat once every seven years (Star Trek The Motion Picture, novelization by Gene Roddenberry).
Perhaps because my fellow liberals and progressives are undermining their own causes with misandry? Yes, copy for this video needed another draft, if only to edit out the implication that intimacy between consenting adults is somehow a problem.
Re: "T'hy'la" You're skipping the bit in Roddenberry's footnote in the novelization to TMP (where he brings up the whole "t'hy'la" business in the first place) where Roddenberry, in an attempt to put a stop to the Kirk/Spock fanzine stories once and for all, he posits 1) the rumor that Spock and Kirk were lovers bothered Spock quite a bit, and 2) Kirk shoots down the very idea by pointing out that he prefers girls (nothing wrong with same sex couplings, it's not how he swings, you do you), and would hate to be thought of as someone who would be foolish enough to hook up with a bed partner that only comes into heat only once every seven years.
That is not in every version of the book. I have copies. 2 similar covers. Only one has that insert. And whenitbwas written. Some sex relationships wasnt even a mainstream idea
Enterprise has its faults but Disco should not have happened. At least in not the way it happened. Kirk and Spock were not lovers. They were like brothers.
The one about the transporter? Yeah I go along with that. The clone may well have identical thought processes, but the original ones will cease. I'd never use one.
I agree. If we made a perfect clone of you with all of your memories and sent that clone to the other side of the world for a year you would now be different people with different memories. If I now killed you and let your clone live, is that still you? Each of us has lived continuously inside our heads for our entire lives, that spark is what is truly us.
Agreed. Star Trek has never successfully explained how a person's consciousness survives the body being torn apart down to subatomic particles. The closest they've ever come was the episode "Realm of Fear" where we see the transport process from Barclay's perspective. He does appear to have a continuous stream of consciousness, but how that would be physically possible is not apparent. Having said that, Star Trek has often depicted beings, even humanoids, who's "minds" have been extracted from their bodies as energy fields of one type or another. If they would simply address this effect in universe and apply it to the transporter then I think it would go a long way.
*i still find it odd that duplicates could be made using the same mass of the original would not each be reduced by half both in size and mass...which would be pretty hard to ignore...there is also no way of knowing who would get what memories or how they would be combined and reintegrated after the transport process had taken place.*
@@scottmantooth8785 How they are not reduced in size and mass is easy. Just like the replicators the copies are being built from a stockpile of extra matter on a sub-atomic scale. The body from the original being transported, along with all waste products on the ship are recycled to make new things. That replicated steak you had for dinner was the dump you took that morning. Broken down into protons, neutrons, and electrons then reassembled as needed. This is also why replicated food isn't as good as real food. Transporters don't keep the patterns for long due to the massive amount of memory they take but the replicators are lower resolution copies as they just need to be good enough to be eatable rather than a perfect copy.
What a crock! They are what they are. The people who've come up with these 'theories' have way too much time on their hands. I just enjoy trek. It really is that simple.
In regards to theory #3 of this list, I have long believed that the shows are historical reenactments of the official logs and that errors and biases from the captains slipped their way in thereby explaining plot holes and inconsistencies. This is why Kirk frequently beams down to planets and is "the hero" even though it makes no sense for the captain to go down (and most other shows keep the captain on the bridge). Also the infamous Voyager episode "Threshold" is merely a very Freudian dream that Tom Paris recorded in his dream diary but due to computer glitches due to lack of maintenance and crazy stuff Voyager went through in the delta quadrant it got accidentally listed as an official ship log by the time Voyager got home.
Uhhh... There are plot holes, and inconsistencies, because it's fictional. The creators at different points over 55 years haven't wanted to be constrained by some made up thing decades ago. People aren't perfect, and neither is fiction.
@@clydemasterson1129 first, everyone knows that. The charge is that it is "fiction" is just an excuse used by the lazy to explain to the teacher why they didn't think doing their book report was a worthwhile use of their time.
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, the marketing leading up to the show screwed the show: "No phasers, no transporters," etc... and yet, immediately they had them making everything feel disingenuous. They didn't have a real plan with the first season and we'd all been spoiled with episodic yet connected storytelling. But as a whole, the show had a lot going for it, it was just underserved. Then the higher-ups trying to force things into Trek that were decidedly not Trek, and plot point (the Temporal Cold War) which could have been done well, but was forced to go in directions that did a disservice to the series. However, when the last season came, the higher-ups were done interfering (because they were going to end it), and low and behold it vastly improved and got the ratings that the higher-ups had been wanting... but it was too late, if anything, due to the then pending CW merger.
@@j.rileyindependentproductions some great points. Let's be honest to trek is absolutely famous for starting with terrible seasons and building up. I'd say seasons 3 and 4 of enterprise hold up to any individual season in all of trek.
@@HardlyQuinn I completely agree with Trek usually having lousy first one or two seasons (though my favorite episode, "Measure of a Man" being an episode exception). I mostly agree with Season Four, and would also mostly agree with three if we were to remove all of the studio-forced influence. Though, minus the shortness of Strange New World's first season (and them solving deep character arcs all within said first season), I'd hazard to say that season has blown any season of Trek out of the water, including final season of Enterprise (minus finale, which would have been great as the last non-finale episode)... And that's coming from a TNG fanboy. lol
Anyone who believes Lt Angela Martin did not re-appear at the end of Shore Leave is NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Yes, she doesn't get a line, but is that a mini-skirted ghost standing next to Rodriguez after McCoy's showgirls went to look for another arm to hook on to?
Thank you guys. I knew I didn't imagine that scene. I know it was just a show but when I swear I saw something few other people saw I start questioning my sanity. Thank for backing up my story.
I'm not a fan of everyone creating slash theory to prove their not homophobes. Rationalism remains, though. Let us remain open to evidence for and against this theory. Never conclude. Evidence in the video is presented to suggest that GR made Kirk & Spock's attitudes toward one another nonplatonic. Generations came after GR's passing. Antonia (whom we've never heard mentioned by name before) was retconned into Kirk's past. If feelings for Spock would necessarily be given form in the Nexus, then any Kirk had were retconned out. Additional BTS info: Spock's inclusion was planned for the Enterprise B scenes and, being that he'd already lived to see Enterprise D, I believe he was supposed to turn up at the end too. Nimoy declined to do the movie just for such brief bookend appearances. So, even if they wanted to film an echo of Spock in the Nexus, they'd have to ask if it's enough to interest Nimoy.
The Kirk Spock thing was disproven by the series. They both had chances to get women, did get women and even under the effects of get high pollen, Spock was chasing vagina.
@@randybaumery5090 you know, there's the whole thing called bisexuality. Some people like both. So they might have a constant, casual thing going on while still chasing after women. Just because someone has a straight partner or a same sex partner it doesn't automagically make them just straight or gay.
@@Sk4lli I could do a critical analysis of Mr Spock and Vulcans in general as written. And they have more in common with smart nerd involuntary celibates then they do with bisexuals. If Mr Spock really wanted Captain Kirk's weiner it would have manifested itself when the plant shot the pollen and made him feel good but instead he wanted him some human woman just like his daddy. If anything Mr Spock loved to date outside of his race if you want to make cultural comparisons
I think the Enterprise was more likely holodeck reconstruction of past events rather than simulation. Riker is just watching the events to happend like he would watch some old vhs tapes.
In show: indications are Will & Deanna are studying history, not indulging in fiction. Point of this popular head-canon: prior to greenlighting the series, all evidence shows there was no such Enterprise as NX-01! If we interpret that the whole series is Riker's favorite historical fiction, it's all reconciled, albeit shakily.
@@alm2187 Yea, maybe, tbh iam not sucha big star trek nerd, i know there are people out there to know a LOT and i dident even finished Enterprice, it just dident catch me.
Something to keep in mind is everything concerning Section 31 *couldn't* have been in a holodeck simulation, whether constructed from historical footage or interpolated from logs.
Mm, isn't there a certain statute after which secret service intel gets declassified, @@GSBarlev? I'd estimate NextGen ends 170 years after the Enterprise retcon. Seems long enough for state secrets to become public knowledge. Oh, but you're saying Section 31 never declassifies, per what we learn in DS9?
I'm 100% here for all this existing in Benny Russell's head. Honestly one of the neatest plot twists DS9 came up with. The 1st episode with Benny is such brilliant writing and acting.
A very strong episode with a message still relevant for today. To add to the theory since the book "The Elysian Kingdom" from the strange new worlds episode of the same name is written by Benny Russell. We know he had a writing career after the events of the DS9 episode. Confirming that the asylum bit was a illusion created by the Pah-wraiths to stop Sisco from finding the Orb of the Emissary.
I've been a trick fan since TOS hit send occasion in my area circuit 1974. I was only 5 then. I often dismiss fan theories but this one is absolute genius and I love love it. Appropriate that it's number 1 on this list even though I find top 10 lists subjective at best.
I would discount anything Gene Roddenberry said about Star Trek in later years. Roddenberry changed (and not for the better) after personal contact with the show's fandom at conventions. He began to believe his own hype and began to have delusions of grandeur above what he was. Which was a television producer with a string of quickly cancelled shows and failed pilots. He was booted out of the movie production after ST:TMP underperformed. He was booted out of the production of TNG after it's first two seasons underperformed. He'd say just about anything to get the spotlight for a few minutes.
@@bugsyproductions3140 Not really. Star Trek was generated from a work for hire contract. It always belonged Desilu Productions and then it's successors. Today CBS/Paramount. Roddenberry might have had an opinion. It just held zero weight and could and was overruled by the studio, who did own Star Trek. Shades of 'Shut Up Wesley!' from TNG.
@@lokisgodhi yes, really. You just tried to dictate things yourself with your claims. We don’t all have to abide by it. You’re also only discussing specific part of Star Trek with the studio thing. Just because they claim something doesn’t mean it has to be inherently accepted just like you have done with Gene. I mean, he purchased then declared the animated series not canon. So by your logic of the studio owning, the animated series isn’t canon. But your logic about gene contradicts that. So in the end, yes really.
@@lokisgodhi it’s also curious how you state Genes opinion held zero weight (not entirely true btw. It definitely held weight just not as much) yet look at your comments. They’re presented as though they hold a lot of weight and should be inherently accepted. It’s a philosophical issue not an ownership issue. But again, if we go latter then your logic is contradictory. Again, gene made the purchase and said animated series was not canon - by your logic of studio owns = studio dictates everything then it’s definitely not canon. Now we add in your claims about Gene and not taking him serious for your personal beliefs about him. Do you see how this isn’t nearly as black and white as you present it? It’s also odd to criticize Gene for those things when Hollywood studios are run in the same fashion. Why does that logic not apply to the studio? Gene made the purchase, immediately declared animated series non canon. The animated series has been tied into other ST shows as of late. So is it canon or not? He owned it 1000000%, declared it not to be. Studio now seems to be on the other side and thinks it is. Which one is right? If canon changes based off ownership then again, it ties into the discussion of who gets to dictate what. See the issue now?
@@bugsyproductions3140 The animated series is owned by CBS/Paramount. Not Roddenberry. His opinion on it being not canon, was just that, his opinion. Held zero weight. He never bought it. It's still owned by CBS/Paramount. That's why they're able to use things from in in their new series, Lower Decks.
#7 - The issue (one of them anyway) with the comparison of Star Trek Matter-Energy transporters to the 'every cell gets replaced over time anyway' is that the latter isn't true. Your nerve and brain cells in particular don't get replaced, otherwise everyone would lose all their memories over time. Also, even if they did work that other way, it would be gradual, you'd exist as a continuum. The vast majority being the same on any given day, with the replaced part filling in the holes and incorporated into the whole It's like the Ship of Theseus, minus the 'original parts being preserved to construct another ship of Theseus later' conundrum. In this hypothetical situation, with a brain that gradually replaces itself over time, it would be like the Theseus ship being replaced part by part. Its identity as the ship of Theseus would remain intact, whereas the matter-energy transporter situation would be like obliterating the ship with a large explosion and then seamlessly gluing it back together in a way that leaves only the faintest evidence that it was reassembled; it looks and functions identically. I mean, in the show there have been examples where due to some circumstance or another, a copy of an existing person was created using the transporter signature. A well known example is the Riker duplicate that ended up living a separate life from the Enterprise Riker. It shows that the copy stored in the transporter buffer is just that; a copy. Given sufficient material (energy) and the right circumstances it can make duplicates. It's a glorified 3D fax machine & shredder combo. I'm definitely in the camp of 'Matter-Energy transporters kill people'. It doesn't matter, IMO, whether a perfect copy of you gets recreated after the fact; you do not exist anymore. The you that stepped on to the transporter dies. The identical replacement then takes over your life and feels and is treated the same as you were. Don't misunderstand me though, the duplicates are still people and everything, but for me the only situation where I'd use that tech on myself is if the alternative is certain death anyway. It would be sort of an enhanced inheritance system, where my duplicate would inherit my life, and would appreciate it just as if they were me. This is why I'm more of a fan of space folding transporter tech that some Star Trek races use. That bypasses these horrific implications.
I would agree that the transporter kills a person, and makes a clone if Star Trek was based entirely on Physics as we understand it today. Star Trek is, however, Science Fiction, and is not constrained by anything that we consider to be Scientific fact. The transporter in an entirely fictional franchise is perfectly capable of metaphysically, or perhaps "magically" transporting a person without killing them. My point is perfectly demonstrated by the writers of this fictional show, who invented the Heisenberg Compensators, one of the parts in a transporter system. Based on the Physics we understand today such a device cannot exist. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is absolute, and cannot be circumvented based on our current scientific understanding. Another example of "magical" technology in Star Trek are the Inertial Dampeners, which is a device used to counteract the effect of instantaneous rapid acceleration to near light speeds. Science says that a device such as this cannot exist.
We've seen in the ST universe that minds can exist outside of bodies under a variety of circumstances. It's plausible (basically confirmed by one of the Barclay episodes) that the transporter can contain this "mind energy", fully functioning, for at least a short time. So basically, souls exist in Trek, and can be stuffed back into a new body after the original is destroyed, at least under properly controlled circumstances. Souls can also be made by machinery, as shown with Lt. Riker. So this is not the Christian-type soul made by an advanced god, but a more naturalistic use of the word -- if years of life experience can "grow" a soul, why can't precise tech build one?
@@edwarddeguzman3258 I'm not entirely sure what you're referencing, but it's safe to say that if they write something into the show, then it's true in the show's context.
I've got to disprove the Angela Martine theory. She did return in Star Trek's final episode "Turnabout Intruder" as communications officer Angela, over two years after her "death" in the episode "Shore Leave."
Related nit to pick: McCoy experiences resurrection in this episode. Much later, in Voyage Home, he'd ask how Spock's was. Spock says (paraphrased) "you'd need to have gone through one to understand what I'm talkin' 'bout." So why doesn't Bones say he HAS? 🤣
What is the internal chronology? TOS aired out of order in terms of internal chronology. Chekov, for example, is well documented as having been part of the Enterprise crew prior to the events of Space Seed when you put the episodes in order of internal chronology instead of broadcast date order.
Angela Martine did come back to life with Doctor McCoy at the end of "SHORE LEAVE" but her reapearnce was so short you could blink and miss it. However "SHORE LEAVE" was her last episode in the classic Star Trek series.
Thanks for the note about her return scene. Far as her not showing up again, though, take it up with the other commenter who claims she was in Turnabout Intruder.
I rember seeing her standing back with Rodriguez again in Shore Leave right after McCoy walks over with the two Show Girls. However it is true she played a different character in Turn About Intruder.
No, Rhoddenberry might have been gay, but no thank you, I'm with the people who said it's NOT a good idea to have Kirk and Spock as lovers. I would never have watched the series.
The Mirror Universe theory is on pretty shaky ground since the Prime universe frequently references the events of the current era, as well as many problems before Earth came together and united as one planet - The Eugenics Wars, the 2020s, WWIII, the difficulty of creating a post-scarcity society, etc. The Benny Russell is God theory? Absolutely brilliant, and fits into the fact that Benjamin Sisko is a Jesus allegory.
I think Strange New Worlds categorically disproves the Mirror Universe theory, I think in the first episode or two? It shows actual footage of actual events and doesn't shy away from them.
Hell, if anything, it PREDICTS and confirms that we would be in the Prime when it comes to Sanctuary districts, seeing as those are literally being suggested today. As well as many cities poorest areas are resembling them in all but name, minus the barricades around the whole area
@@OldManYellsAtClouds yes I'm aware of that. I have just never heard that horror anthology disguised as Science Fiction was ever any intent of the show. But thank you for your input.
@@bobnope457 It's perfectly fine to not hold ENT in the highest regard, or even to dislike it. I just dont appreciate the host of the video inserting her own opinions into this video as if they are facts that the majority of the fan base agrees with. This is true on multiple points in the video, especially with the point she tried to make against the Old Testament God. Suffice it to say that I am not a fan of Ellie as a host on this channel.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds she didn't write it but as presenter she is the final editor. You don't see these issues with the other presenters. There is a reason why most of the other presenters write their own videos but Ellie needs someone to tell her what to say
One of my old pet theories was the prime directive came about due to botched first contact with the Klingons, that they had help them advance too quickly and have sworn off ever doing that again. Basically this came out of the idea that it seems like the Klingons would leave any kid to die in the forest who showed signs of interest in science or math that they would have needed to develop for space travel. Also when ever talking about why they have the prime directive they always go in hushed tones that bad things happen when you mess with a culture development, that it seemed to me to be something that is still effecting the Federation to this day.
I have to say this is the first time I couldn't finish a TrekCulture video. The ignorance and silliness was too much for me. Honestly, most of these theories are completely ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not that into Star Trek anymore. There was a time when theories like these would peak my interest, but now I just can't help but think, "It's a TV show. Please stop." Maybe it's inevitable that watching the same thing over and over leads to creating these ridiculous head-canon narratives to keep it interesting. I just watch and enjoy what is presented. The transporters don't kill you, they were a convenient and budget-friendly way of moving the plot along smoothly (not to mention the episode of TNG that actually shows us what happens inside the beam). Trek history mentions all of our past mistakes, so no, we aren't in the mirror universe, we are in the REAL universe. Not to mention that point of Star Trek was to show how humanity could overcome past mistakes to make a better future. Fan theories can be fun but these feel like they were plucked from the far corners of the cesspool of reddit just to create some content. I love you TrekCulture, but this isn't your best list. In the great words of Mystery Science Theater, "Repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show. I should really just relax.'"
It's not you, it's the posers. People like Ellie get jobs reading memes and making videos of the results. These are shallow videos because they are done by shallow people.
tldr; Zoomers have ruined society with their extreme nihilism and self-destruction. They are a generation of ruin. Ellie has the personal belief that nothing in the world matters, including the lives of her family, so why would she care about Trek?
@@alm2187 That's a fair assessment. After I left my comment I re-read the title and said the same thing to myself. I guess they delivered on the promise after all 😆
I always took t'hy'la to mean a bond closer than friendship, closer than brotherhood. Doesn't mean they hop into the sack, though, that's something different again.
The transporter theory section showed a clip from the episode "Realm of Fear", which completely debunks it. Barclay and several other crewmembers are shown repeatedly to be conscious and aware of the entire transporting process. In addition, the only thing that the stellar gases did was make the process longer.
It's more that the Realm of Fear transport premise raises many questions at best or is nonsense at worst. Transport takes all molecules apart, turns them into energy, and reconstitutes them elsewhere, correct? So how can a lifeform experiencing it remain conscious and move around? (Even if we can explain the inside view of the transport beam, we can't prove they're continuously conscious. It's same token as how sometimes you come to and your timepieces all confirm you were asleep longer than you thought you were.) Associated case study: transportation in TWoK. Captain Terrell presumably beams off a flat transporter pad. So how has he struck the Captain Morgan pose when he materializes on the rocky planet? Did his transport Chief instruct him on how to position his leg safely for where he'd land? In another scene, Saavik can be heard talking during transport. So it's not strictly necessary to pause a conversation before beaming? If we accept Realm of Fear at face value, it may explain these scenes! Yes, you can talk and move mid-beam, so perhaps the Cap simply saw where the rock-jetty was and raised his leg accordingly. 😎 We're still left with the mystery: HOW can perception persist when you're inside the transporter beam?
This, otherwise killing someone for a few seconds and reconstructing them would be seen as fucked up. Even if functionally it was a brief second of death. Bones' fear is medically induced, due to the idea of potentialy detremental effects of subspace travel, and barkleys is of anxiety about the helplessness of it all, in a similar way to most phobias relating to travel, that even if it's unlikely something goes wrong, there's such a minimal risk anything will that it's negligable to most people, but in truth in most of the occassions of malfunctions or sabotage or disruptions there's physically nothing you can do about it as you are already trapped within the vehicle (in this case a pocket of subspace)
I've been pondering the effects of transporters for years now, if they were to be taken out of their sci-fi setting and put into reality. And my conclusion is that it would only amount to an overly complicated cloning device that would be set to destroy the original. Even if the matter is converted to data and then sent to another area to be re-constituted, (which is the de-facto description of how transporters work) that new body would not be the original. I'd even go on to say that you could get rid of the process where you destroy the original entirely. Which HAS happened a few (?) times in the series. Now I don't care too much about references to the show stating anything for or against this theory of mine, since in the end it is only a work of fiction and no matter how good the writer is, there will always be holes in logic and contradictions. I'm just saying that if teleporters existed IRL, I would want nothing to do with them, other then to hack duplicates of useful items into existence. Like food or valuable materials. Putting a living being through the full process of teleportation would be unethical at best. Portals would be more acceptable, as they seek to create shortcuts in space/time instead of dismantling/rebuilding things.
MUCH older than that-- The question of whether the transporter was killing people was raised by McCoy in the James Blish book "Spock Must Die". I realize the books aren't necessarily "canon", especially this one given how it ended, but the book was certainly widely read, being the first "original" Star Trek book post-cancellation.
No it really doesn't. The continuous consciousness could also be an illusion. If a transporter happens in a blink of an eye, your consciousness could be disrupted, literally, between a blink of an eye without you knowing it but since the transported copy is a perfect copy the consciousness would still appear to be continuous.
Well...kind of. Roddenberry was courting potential script writers who had extensive experience with Westerns, crime dramas, hospital shows and such, but not a lot of experience with science fiction. So he pitched it to them by saying "Don't think of it as 'science fiction;' think of it more like 'Wagon Train,' but in outer space." And then either Herb Solow or Bob Justman (I forget which) refined that concept as "WagonTrain to the stars," and it stuck. Roddenberry wanted to do adult-oriented science fiction, in the vein of 'The Outer Limits' and 'Twilight Zone,' but with recurring characters and situations; that's probably where the "horror anthology" misconception originates, as both shows had aspects of science fiction as well as fantasy and horror.
@@chrisinnes2128 I think it's the other way around since Nick was the name he used at the academy and Tom was the name he used when Janeway found him, in a poolhall if memory serves. Pretty sure a big organization like Starfleet would know what your real name is. Also it's not really a theory as the writers have actually said they intended it to be the same character but a rights issue or something made them decide to change the name
I definitely think Enterprise was heavily hinted to have been a holodeck simulation the entire time due to the reveal that the chef was Riker. The chef being constantly referred to throughout the series links to Riker visiting the simulation on a regular basis
My crazy theory is that star trek enterprise is just an extended episode of quantum leap. And Sam Beckett must form the federation before he can leap again.
#6 is the laziest theory and the most easily debunked. Watch the episode. At the end when Spock says he'll return to the Enterprise and passes the cabaret girl to Sulu he walks in front of both Lt. Rodriguez and Lt. Angela Martine standing together, very much alive. Try harder, TrekCulture.
I have a theory about the ending to Voyager, which I have seen similar mentioned online before, that the events of Endgame in Voyager create a paradox loop with the events of Endgame happening over and over again. It starts as we know with older Janeway who travels back in time to bring Voyager home early, which ultimately succeeds. As this is a success Janeway doesn't at any time travel back to bring Voyger home early as this is no longer necessary, which creates a paradox. How can Voyager be home early if Janeway never went back in time to bring Voyager home early? If we get to the time period in the future when Janeway is supposed travel back in time to bring Voyager home early but she doesn't as she thinks there would not be a need to in this reality or she does know to do it but forgets to or can't for whatever reason, this undoes the events of Endgame and the timeline resets to the start of Endgame again and Voyager and the timeline in the Star Trek universe ends up in a never ending loop caused by this one event.
Older Janeway is part of an alternate timeline where Voyager arriving late did happen. Janeway went back in time and changed all that and should have just vanished if this was a singular timeline, but my guess it is an alternate timeline, as older Janeway did not return to her time but was killed by the borg queen. Speaking of alternate timelines, Seven was heterosexual and wanted to date men throughout Voyager seasons and wants to hook up with Chakoutay, but now with Picard show she is either gay or bisexual showing interest in Raffi. I blame it on "alternate timeline writers" who don't respect the Canon depiction of a character from previous series. Times have indeed changed!
If time is not actually a one-way arrow and is allowed to curve back on itself, you can still end up avoiding paradoxes by bringing in chaos theory--not the butterfly flapping it's wings nonsense, but the works of Poincaré and Lorenz and the math of periodic orbits and strange attractors. To save you the PhD--systems that are chaotic or have the potential for chaos will often have stable trajectories (orbits) where if they land on that path, they won't leave. So if the Prime timeline is such an attractor, all other nearby timelines will bend themselves so that subsequent "orbits" (causality loops) land on that timeline. So Endgame, Picard, Yesterday's enterprise, and every other "dark future of the week" episode shows a given universe converging on the Prime timeline.
Time travel in Trek is silly but makes a crazy kind of sense sometimes, if Janeway travels from timeline A to timeline B it'd create a new timeline C that has two Janeways and no paradox. To quote Yoda, always in motion is the future, in other words future Janeway didn't come from 'THE' future, she came from 'A' future, and since no time cops showed? Who knows, maybe it was meant to happen.
@@adrianvanleeuwen It was never ever stated that Seven was only interested in men. We saw her be interested in men, sure, but there's no possible way to know that she wasn't also into women. Plus lots of people realise late in life that they are gay or bi. Often after several straight relationships that don't work out. 20 odd years have passed since she was interested in Chakotay and she's clearly changed in a lot of ways in that time. Entirely reasonable that she came to realise during that time that she preferred or also liked women.
@@adrianvanleeuwen There was a Seven quip in a Voyager episode where she does allude to being bi or pansexual. I can't remember which one, tho. It was something along the lines of it being illogical to limit oneself to a certain gender preference.
The Benny Russell theory would match a similar element of Marvel's cosmic structure: The ability known as Comics Awareness: certain characters in the comics are aware (for various reasons, as there's more than one path to this enlightenment) that they are fictional characters. Deadpool is the most well-known, although the Blonde Phantom, She-Hulk, Gwenpool, and Rick Jones have the same ability. Gwenpool is supposedly from our universe, and has the knowledge (secret identities, etc.) a comics reader from our universe has, other than traveling from the "real" to Marvel universe and back, doesn't influence events. She-Hulk and Deadpool have persuaded their writers/artists/editors to change plot elements in the comic as they happen, and the Blonde Phantom and She-Hulk have torn through a page, crossed a two-page ad (one of the people they took along scraped his shin on one of the staples) and tore back into another panel later in the comic, and Rick Jones persuaded the seven Friendless (a parody of DC's Endless) to intervene and change the outcomes of events brought on by the cancellation of the Captain Marvel comic to give everyone happy endings. DC comics had a similar story line where Animal Man was able to journey through a realm inhabited by cancelled, half-forgotten comics characters and pass into the real world, where he met the writer of his comic (Grant Morrison) and persuaded them to undo the events that had resulted in the death of Animal Man's family, which they were willing to do partially because it was the last issue of Animal Man's comic that Grant would be writing. This later led to the creation of a being in the DC universe called The Writer, who could influence events by writing about them on his computer, but who was, as a fictional character, also subject to the whims of the writers creating the comic in which The Writer appeared. They got killed off by being featured in an issue of Suicide Squad and being attacked and killed by an opponent who was able to attack more quickly than The Writer could create plot elements to fend it off.
To me, the Thomas Riker debacle in Second Chances (I say "debacle" because I loathe the episode's concept) confirmed that beaming kills the person being transported and creates a copy of them on the other end. If it were just moving a person from one location to another, then Thomas Riker would have been impossible.
Yeah, but then the one where Barclay grabs those slug-dudes in the matter stream suggests the person is actually physically traveling through some kind of a physical place.
Enterprise *cannot* just be a holodeck simulation. In season 2, we see the remnants from the Borg sphere from First Contact. This event happens after The Pegasus, so how could Riker have seen that in an "episode". Fan theories are stupid.
It's very worth reading Roddenberry's preface - written 'as' Admiral Kirk writing his memoirs - to the novelization of ST:TMP, (which was the source for the "T'hy'la" coinage. Alas, Roddenberry immediately backpedaled on the 'lovers' interpretation - make your own mind up about how much of that was Roddenberry himself and how much was making sure the rerun royalties kept coming in. The preface also suggests that the episodes of TOS are a dramatization based on the ships logs, and one that Kirk finds overly lurid. Depending on whether you want this part of Roddenberry's novelization to be canonical or not, this makes Point 3 - the "in-universe TV show" - more than just a wild fan hypothesis, at least where TOS is concerned.
For me things we see on screen far outweigh things stated off screen. In "Generations" we see Kirk's version of perfect happiness was living in a cabin with his girlfriend... not Spock.
@@Linerunner99 Kirk was always the ladies man and preferred the company of women romantically. Scenes of Kirk with Spock on film, only showed them as great friends and like brothers never more.
One complication there, @@Linerunner99 The concept of crews from the A and the D in crossover was, I hazard, the sharpest shift from Gene's mandates yet. It's hard to speculate on what he'd have thought of The Nexus and what Kirk would have experienced in it.
@@alm2187 Long before Gene died he was already often being overruled. It's the burden of asking a studio to fund your show. They become the final say in it. He was left alone to do his thing mostly, but if they saw something they didn't like would step in and simply tell him no.
At the end of Bab 5 it shows someone from our distant future watching the events of the TV series, before finally turning into a ball of light and floating away!
In Star Wars, it does make sense that the prequels look flashier. It takes place during a time before the empire basically took over. So everything is brighter, more colorful, and newer looking. After the takeover everything gets darker, harsher, and more gloomy. It was a smart move.
Also, the less-efficient Imperial economy means shortages and business failures. Old stuff is kept going instead of being replaced. Funds are diverted to insane "prestige" projects instead of being available for routine maintenance. Anyone from an Iron Curtain nation (or, increasingly, the US) will know about all of this.
do your research, Angela appears in the final Planetside scene of "Shore leave" they just do not make a big deal of her coming back like with McCoy since she is a minor supporting character. Also you should not give Roddenberry credit for other people's work it was Alen Dean Foster that created the word Thyl'a but hey don't let the facts get in the way of your making up the idea that Kirk and Spock were bisexual... please go on...
Creators often like to give a "rational" explanation to viewers who don't believe it. As in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Joss Whedon wrote a story that explains to us that the whole universe of the Buffy serie and the Angel serie happens in the head of a poor girl interned in an asylum. At the end of the episode; you have to make your choice… Oh, and don't be too politically correct: Discovery wasn't well received at all.
Star Trek V was entirely in Kirk's head after his fall off of El Capitan. My reasoning is that the whole movie starts and ends in at the campsite and that all of the inconsistencies are all dreamlike in the cinematography.
The line of Enterprises starts with boats, then there's the space shuttle, then the ring-ship, then the original starship. That's NCC-1701. There is no NX-01. How can the Enterprise show be canon when it's founded on an inconsistency? Not that there's any right or wrong. Showrunners can make creative changes like that if they want. Opinion: "Enterprise is great..." If you already knew the change I pointed out above, your opinion suggests one of two things. 1. You opine that it's a good change. 🙂 2. You don't think it's a good change, but you forgive it because you like the show as a whole. 🙂 When Discovery was unfolding, I estimated it's actually MORE consistent with established continuity than Enterprise. * no source I know of says there wasn't a secret ship called Discovery that vanished in a vortex * Pike orders conversion back to flat viewscreens, thus explaining why Enterprise has them in TOS * uniforms are 3D-printed, thus I head-canonize that "ship's stores" can mean databanks, so Kirk can order NAZI uniforms in the unexpected event that his crew finds a planet where everyone's wearing them Not that it's as simple as a counting game, but we can also tally up apparent inconsistencies. But head canon can plug any plot-hole. We can also fault-find a story thought to be perfect. Between Berman and Kurtzman, which man gave us spinoffs that are more consistent with the original? That can only be addressed by reasoning and analysis. Which era does someone like more? That's a separate question. It's only an illusion that reason enters into it.
And a collection of history books is just a collection of history books. We can still ask how we can be sure of any of it. We can check them for consistency. We can ask what the authors wanted us to believe. Analyzing fictional events is good mental exercise.
I do agree with theory three but from the other angle. The reason the show looks so different is that they are visual portraits to us. *1, TOS Enterprise as a military vessel. Unless its specially commissioned (like the space shuttle) its going to be bare bones to keep cost down. *2, TNG's Enterprise was a purpose built Presidential plane. It had to function as both battle ship and a cruse liner. *3, DS9 was an acquired military base. It looked like someone took a cold war era building in East Germany and tried to build it into something more welcome hotel with mall and conference center. *4, Voyager while being flung far from its home had been planed as a long term vessel. It was the Space Shuttle and International Space Station minus the planned ability to replace things that break. 2004 Battlestar Galactica did it better, but that wouldn't have worked for UPN for the same reason as the Year of Hell. *5, Enterprise was an experimental ship It was meant to have missing bulk heads, wiring hanging from the walls an ceiling and exposed pipes for a reason. Because we had not figured out how to hide that stuff while still being able to get to it all. *6, Every thing after this is polished to a shine because its what we expect from a movie studio looking to sell us something that isn't a 1950's B movie or 1930's serial. In other words starting with the 2007 movie every thing after Enterprise is fake. The dramatization, fancy sets and special effects are added to sell the product.
Another explanation for why there's suddenly an Enterprise before NCC-1701: Zef Cochrane saw the ship's shape and heard Deanna tell him its name. He influenced whatever corps of engineers first began to build starships. HOWEVER... Check any source from before the 90s. All the ones I've seen strongly suggest humanity gets at least as far as Alpha Centauri in sleeper ships. Cochrane was born there and would go on to break the light barrier.
I'm guessing you're referring to novels which aren't canon to the main shows and movies. My head canon is that Enterprise isn't technically a prequel to TOS but a parallel universe created by the interactions in First Contact, no major differences due to how limited most of the interactions were but enough to make subtle changes which explains the parts that don't line up with TOS.
Another explanation for an Enterprise before NCC-1701?? You mean like the ancient tallship HMS Enterprise, or the aircraft carrier or the spaceshuttle??? NO HOW COULD THIS BE?! Must be a paralell universe because I don't like something about it so therefore everyone else can't have fun. Trek fans are ridiculous. All of star trek is in a different universe (the Benny Russle theory for example) but also because there were no eugenics wars in the 90s and there is no manned mission to Europa anytime soon let alone 2024 and hopefully no world war that kills millions. We need to stop using the "alternate universe" excuse to try and force the trek we personally want onto others, that's just gatekeeping and childish.
Uh...no, no novels, @@GrimmShadowsII Yes on the part where First Contact consistency is head-canon territory, though. April's/Pike's/Kirk's starship Enterprise is the first. Picard & crew go back in time. This results in a new timeline with a new first Enterprise called NX-01. The part where First Contact is a great, big face-palm: * Kirk recognizes "Zeframe Cochrane of Alpha Centauri," strongly suggesting ZC was born there * when rescuing crash survivors in the Talos system, Enterprise crewmembers tell them "you won't believe how fast" the return trip will be. (Granted there's a lot to talk about on this point, though.) * Botany Bay is a sleeper ship, suggesting this was the original standard for interstellar travel * even some of NextGen is about finding out what happened to early settlers, such as the Irish colony which may have predated warp drive (though, here again, it's a question of if any star systems besides Alpha Centauri are somehow reachable at sub-light speeds) * the Star Trek Technical Manual is THE ONLY REFERENCE saying Zef emigrated from Earth to Alpha Centauri, and it was published after First Contact was greenlit. Other books I've been able to check (not novels) word it in a way that implies that Z.C. is not from Earth All that's missing is a clear statement of where he was born that dates back before the 1990s. There are other ways they got lazy with the premise of First Contact, too.
Who'd a thought "love" has one definition 😜 certainly not the ancient Greeks, only Americans. I always imagined the 'god' character of Star Trek V similar to Q, if not exactly, the Nacene species (the Caretaker/Suspiria) Then put in isolation for manipulating many in the Milky Way, instead of helping, by his peers, they themselves from another plane "Exosia". (Continuum?) Who's to say these aren't the same with their similarities, as our ol' boy Q embellishes everything, maybe he self describes more theatrically than realistically as the Nacene seen in Voyager.
Who sits around and thinks up these theories or gives them creedence? "Enterprise" isn't generally hated, although the last so-called episode of "Enterprise" about Riker's broken holodeck adventure is generally ignored. If you think there were continuity problems with "Enterprise", then you haven't watched SNW as it supposedly "prequels" TOS. For example, SNW ignores or insults the TOS episodes, "Amok Time," "Arena," even "Naked Time," and most recently, "Balance of Terror" and Kirk's behavior in that episode. And while "The Cage" wasn't shown as a standalone episode for years on TV, it was essentially shown as a two-parter as "The Menagerie" in the first season of TOS. Where have you been? All in all, I'm sorry I listened to this.
To address if Enterprise is generally hated more than other shows, we'd need to analyze opinion polls, statistical surveys, aggregate scores, etc. Calling it the black sheep is plausible. TrekCulture would just have done well to cite some poll results that say so.
Well Roddenberry saying Kirk and Spock were lovers is an all out lie. Roddenberry explicitly stated in his novel The Motion Picture that they were not. When other novelists tried to depict them as such, Roddenberry shot them down and forbade them to publish the story. Soul mate does not mean lover. There's no reason to sexualize all forms of love. That's just immature. Kirk and Spock's love as far beyond the inaneness of sexuality.
Horror anthology??? Yeah ima go ahead and ignore that. And is this girl a legit trekkie...nahhhhh just sign me up. Yeah I'm a normal guy with tatts and a mowhawk
For real. So many of us actual Trekkies could do a better job with these lists in a casual conversation, yet they hire someone that has literally zero knowledge of the subject
..... the red Angel at no point was ever considered to be a god-like character. It is quite literally Michael Burnham's mother with advanced technology. Jesus Christ did the writers of this show even pay attention to the Star Trek Canon
Captain Kirk and captainspock had a brotherly love they were like brothers they were best friends that it was not sexual how dare someone suggest that it is very offensive to suggest something like that and I don't even think the Vulcans are capable of that with their 7 year mating cycle that's all about procreation is very animal like but going into heat or something Balkans aren't even capable of having casual sex so but Spock is half human so maybe he is it's possible for him but both of them has always been attracted to women they both had relationships with women now Spock it's haunted had even in the original series that has had a few relationships we didn't get to on screen but there's been a few times when spot got the girl
That much of Star Trek is an in-universe TV show isn't so much a fan theory as an obscure bit of trivia. The Captains Log monolog was created by Roddenberry collaborator Herb Solow. It's purpose was to establish that the audience was even further in the future watching the past adventures of the crew. This fact also explains why Khan recognized Chekov in Wrath of Khan. The stardates in TOS show that the series did not air in chronological order. When you rearrange the episodes by internal chronology instead of air date, it becomes well established that Chekov was part of the Enterprise crew long before the events of Space Seed and that he was merely one of many crew members that didn't get any screen time during the episode.
This is the kind of interesting stuff that TrekCulture should be making videos about (and have in the past, to be fair). I also thoroughly enjoy the behind the scenes pieces and why certain decisions were made. The commentaries and documentaries that are part of the TNG blue-ray release are very intriguing.
And, the use of a framing device to put your audience even further into the future was already being used in science fiction. Isaac Asimov and Frank Herbert both did it in their Foundation and Dune series of books.
Interestingly, Babylon 5 actually did do this. In the series finale, it's revealed that the entire 5 year run of the show has been a dramatic reenactment of the "actual" history of the station.
@@lionofhighpark I think that may actually be reading too much into the finale. The video montage at the end of the show was all the behind the camera crew. I see that as more of an extended closing credits so that everyone on the show got at least a moment of screen time. Not just the actors. A better argument for B5 is in the opening credits monolog. They were all written in the past tense. The narrator is telling the audience what has already happened.
@@KyleWitten The bit I was referring to is in the title card before the end credits "for those of you who have been archiving this ISN Special Documentary, the people responsible .." which frames the series as an in universe documentary by ISN. Your point about the opening monologue being a past tense narrator is absolutely part of that. Good catch.
The longevity and expansiveness of the Star Trek reality in relation to Benny is just strong evidence that Benny's not real. It's interesting to imagine DS9 as an original literary series, but it's also a stretch. Voyager's the first tie-in and NextGen's the first prequel? Or what? DS9 establishes that Benny's reality is just the Pah-Wraiths' attempt (which ultimately fails) to dominate Sisko's mind. If you want to make it more than an inner struggle with mind invaders, say they transport Sisko's consciousness to a pocket reality or even a whole alternate reality. Benny was thus given a window into the Star Trek universe with some influence, not control over it.
People try to apply real-world physics to Star Trek technology which is, for all intents and purposes, one step removed from magic. Transporters aren't quantum cloning machines, they literally take a person apart Lego-style and rebuild them somewhere else. Except sometimes, when you can still be a whole and complete person in the matter stream. Or those times when you can carry on a conversation while beaming... etc.
lmao found the poser that didn't take a single physics class. Transporters are literally being designed in actual labs this very moment. And there is not a single instance of someone instantaneously teleporting, it has literally always taken at least an eye-blink of time to complete
@@topogigio7031 I know that, numbskull. But warp drive on Star Trek is not the same as the Alcubierre metric, transporters do not operate on quantum cloning and evolution is not a predefined roadmap. Star Trek does not use real world physics.
if women contain all the eggs they'll ever have from birth, then how do our bodies recycle every seven years ? I have scars that are nearly 40 years old. So, there's no way we're doing that.
Have to give props to the team doing the graphics. I loved the inclusion of the Bajoran Herald newspaper, complete with article condemning Kai Winn as the least popular in Bajoran history. :D
Every cell does not regenerate every 7 years. That is a false theory. While there are some cells that do regulate like blood and skin cells there are other cells that remain with you your entire life such as cells of your central nervous system.
Yeah and TOS was good too. I quitted watching Next Generation which I found the most boring, and didn't see many seasons of DS9, but not so interested I would go looking for them. I saw all the seasons of Enterprise.
The transporters creator in Enterprise says the transporter doesn't kill you. You are converted to energy and the energy is simply pushed to a new location.
I love star trek enterprise, definitely my favourite show. It's a shame it wasn't positively received in the larger fanbase
I definitely enjoyed Enterprise as well.
At the time it aired, I would agree with you. However, there seems to be a much larger appreciation for the show now that a significant amount of time has passed. I, for one, was too young to have watched the show back then. I first watched it in 2017 and I immediately fell in love with it.
I love it!
I couldn't make it past that insanely stupid theme song! Who's bright idea was that!!! It's like having Cindy Lauper's "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" as the theme song for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"!
Just like DS9 it's getting a bit of a revival these days and people are coming around to it. I mean, it has Jeffrey Combs as Commander Shran. What's not to like?
The DS9 show runners originally wanted to end the series showing it as a televised version of Benny Russell's stories but higher ups nixed it because it would have invalidated the whole franchise.
Which I think was good. Because Star Trek is meant to be inspirational. It's real. We live together in the future. Having a current person saying "Hopefully one day" just undermines it.
DS9 and the rest of Star Trek is actually part of the Tommy Westphall Universe shown on St. Elsewhere. Because practically everything else is. I'm serious. Tommy's dad, Donald Westphall and two other doctors visited Sam Malone’s bar from Cheers; Cheers introduced Frasier Crane, of Frasier; John Hemingway of The John Larroquette Show once called into Frasier’s talk show; The John Larroquette Show once mentioned Yoyodyne, which besides being a part of Buckaroo Banzai, is also mentioned on certain ship dedication plaques that are shown on TNG, and Yoyodyne had an office on DS9 as well.
Thats good, no-one really wants something stupid like it was just a dog's dream.
I see every season of Discovery has never happened
TOS had the different type of control panels it did because it was made in the 1960s. TNG was made in the late '80s and 90s, so it had a touch screen interface which was then co-opted by following series.
A non-trek example of space-opera controls being consistent with when the show was made can be seen in all the joysticks used in "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" because it came out in the late 1970s.
Worf didn't become an ambassador, he became a Professor of Poker Operations at Mars Community College.
Spock said it best “This is NOT the god of Shakari, or any other.” It was NOT God or any deity, just another imposter calling himself God.
Or Kirk's line of What does God need with a starship?
If only either had said "there is no God", then they'd have been spot on. 🤷♂️
Consistency: the Cytherians (from one NextGen ep) send you a mental message, wait for you at the center of the galaxy, and communicate through bighead avatars once you get there. I, for one, infer that the false Godhead guy in Final Frontier is a Cytherian malcontent and/or criminal element.
Inconsistency: for the NextGen crew, traveling charted space from end to end would get them across less than a fifth of the Galaxy. (That's why Janeway took so long to get home. She had almost all five fifths to travel.) So why was it so quick for Kirk to get Sybok to the galactic center? This seemed like if a modern terrorist held NASA hostage and demanded to be flown to Pluto! 🙃
Just like the Pope.
Sci Fi "gods" are mostly gnostic false gods. Aeons and Archons that created a corrupt copy of pure creation and trapped the descendents of Adama (pure spiritual man) inside their simulation. Enlightenment is to see past the various levels of the corrupt universe to reach oneness with the true creator in perfection. The one described on Isiah's vision. This is the religion of Socrates and Plato that came down to the Gnostics as pagans. When they heard the messianic story from 1st cen Jewish Christians....early accounts of Yeshua seemed to fit the Platonist ideas they already had from the metaphor of The Cave and Plato's theoretical Virtuous Man (book 2 of The Republic) born without evil. The virtuous man had to be tortured, stripped and killed on a wooden post outside the city to prove he was without fundamental evil....as all men are fundamentally evil...they only fake goodness.
This is also in The Creatures of Promethius myth.
Another popular SF trope is Arian Christianity (JWs, Mormons, Partialists, 7th Day, etc...) where Jesus is just a human incarnation of Angel Michael a brother to Angel Lucifer....both with different rival concepts of how to run the universe for their dad....and the fate of man.
You see a lot of this in The Doctor and The Master in New Who and some Old Who. Cropped up in the last episode of TAS.
Religious heresy is great fun for atheist SF writers.
Soulmates doesn’t mean they’re gay… not everyone has to be gay
Philia and/or Pragma rather then Eros.
Not everyone is gay (very few on screen). But Kirk and Spock clearly have a romantic (and occasionally sexual) relationship
Not everyone has to be straight...
People are addicted to porn, and it has fried their brains. The British chick with 10 layers of makeup caked on, probably isn't capable of registering loving your friend like a brother. I love my best best friend like a brother, but I don't feel the need to replace my wife.
Spock&Kirks relationship sheds light on all Kirks overcompensating horndog behavior.
Sorry, but the bit about Kirk and Spock being lovers is utter nonsense. Two men (or women) can have a deep bond without being sexually attracted, etc. Not all guys are football-friends only, some have closer meaningful relationships. It crazy to try to apply a modern revisionist theory through your constructed lens of so called diversity.
Why are you so threatened by that idea?
Projecting pretty hard there, sport.
@@SportyMabamba do u know how to read? You are making throwaway statements by saying that I’m projecting. I stated that the assumption that the characters of kirk and Spock must be gay or have a sexual relationship because they have a bond is a leap of logic. Spock would be offended because the assumption is illogical. Myself I wouldn’t care if they were in a gay or sexual, therefore I’m not offended nor threatened. Use your brain, not your agenda, sport.
@@jameshutchins8155 And here you come to the crux of what bothers me about Spirk theory. I really would not have cared if they were lovers. And I’m sure that the characters, as written, have come to deeply love and trust one another. But these days, there is no acknowledgement that love does not = sexual desire. At the extreme, all LOVE is being categorized as sexual, in some cases even towards family members and children. And OMG if touching is involved! Kinda sad for a species that craves love AND physical contact!
@@conniepayne4425 Well said Connie and good points. I hate using the term agenda, but when someone just tells another in a conversation that they are ‘projecting’ it is their way to delegitimize the other and shut down thought and conversation so that they can protect their narrow agenda. Anyways… this is all just story telling and we shouldn’t get too serious about it, but also not apply or impose our world view on characters just because it makes us be more
comfortable in our pants. ;)
@@jameshutchins8155 "..more comfortable in our pants."
*triggered* Did you just assume my legwear????!?!???!?
Seriously, there are members of many fandoms who spend way too much time arguing over the sexual preferences of fictional characters, from all sides of the sexual spectrum.
TOS was on NBC, but CBS, do better Trek Culture.
Even famously so
I actually liked most of Enterprise
I liked most of it until they went all crazy at the end with the Zindi(?)
Sorry but no.
1. As you point out yourself in the same bit, T'hy'la also means "brother", not just "lover" or "loved one". It's a word with multiple meanings like "shalom" in Hebrew. It's all based on context, and Kirk and Spock are more like brothers than lovers, and saying otherwise sounds like trying to justify fanfic writers' homoerotic fantasies. Not that the fantasies are bad, but it doesn't fit the characters, not like it fits Stamets and Culber. But saying t'hy'la also means "lover" does not automatically mean "Yes, Kirk and Spock are lovers". They aren't brother, friend and lover ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
2. I know the UK and America are separated by a common language but those apostrophes in "T'hy'la" are there for a reason. They break up syllables. It's Ti-hai-lah, or Tee-hai-lah. You don't blend the T and H together like you do for thought, thick, thumb.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds how does being more specfic in pointing out the failures make those failures less impactful?
Sounds like you're a Trump freak that hates getting called out for being a dipshit so you're trying to call someone out for being detailed
Actually, the same source that first gave us t'hy'la meaning friend, brother, or lover also shot down that theory. Kirk himself denies it in strenuous terms, making a point of saying he prefers a woman, and that he would never choose a lover who only came into heat once every seven years (Star Trek The Motion Picture, novelization by Gene Roddenberry).
But then in later interviews he would just leave things kind of vague. (Edit: It does seem in later years he’s taken a hard stand on heterosexuality.
That sounds like a cover up for what's really happening 👀
I get sick of hearing these things after a while - 2 men can be best friends and brothers without being lovers - grow up.
@@kitpenguin8 And lovers can still be best friends
@@kitpenguin8 you need to read the books. Shits gay lmao. Cry about it
Why is it insidious that Bones wants to spend time with those women?
Perhaps because my fellow liberals and progressives are undermining their own causes with misandry? Yes, copy for this video needed another draft, if only to edit out the implication that intimacy between consenting adults is somehow a problem.
Ellie has never watched Star Trek. She just reads from a script.
Probably, maybe she watched one show or the movies
Re: "T'hy'la" You're skipping the bit in Roddenberry's footnote in the novelization to TMP (where he brings up the whole "t'hy'la" business in the first place) where Roddenberry, in an attempt to put a stop to the Kirk/Spock fanzine stories once and for all, he posits 1) the rumor that Spock and Kirk were lovers bothered Spock quite a bit, and 2) Kirk shoots down the very idea by pointing out that he prefers girls (nothing wrong with same sex couplings, it's not how he swings, you do you), and would hate to be thought of as someone who would be foolish enough to hook up with a bed partner that only comes into heat only once every seven years.
But that's it, isn't it? The truth? Their relationship is so close that Kirk has helped Spock through the pon farr at least once, if not more.
@@shinjisan2015 If you call getting his ass kicked in ritual combat and presumably killed "helping"...
That is not in every version of the book. I have copies. 2 similar covers. Only one has that insert. And whenitbwas written. Some sex relationships wasnt even a mainstream idea
You know two people can be very close to each other without being lover.
Yes and there are a lot of examples for that Sulu and Chekov ore Kirk and McCoy (I did not watch anything except TOS yet so I only listed those four)
Enterprise has its faults but Disco should not have happened. At least in not the way it happened. Kirk and Spock were not lovers. They were like brothers.
The one about the transporter? Yeah I go along with that. The clone may well have identical thought processes, but the original ones will cease. I'd never use one.
I agree. If we made a perfect clone of you with all of your memories and sent that clone to the other side of the world for a year you would now be different people with different memories. If I now killed you and let your clone live, is that still you? Each of us has lived continuously inside our heads for our entire lives, that spark is what is truly us.
Yeah, keep my ass in a shuttlepod!
Agreed.
Star Trek has never successfully explained how a person's consciousness survives the body being torn apart down to subatomic particles.
The closest they've ever come was the episode "Realm of Fear" where we see the transport process from Barclay's perspective. He does appear to have a continuous stream of consciousness, but how that would be physically possible is not apparent.
Having said that, Star Trek has often depicted beings, even humanoids, who's "minds" have been extracted from their bodies as energy fields of one type or another. If they would simply address this effect in universe and apply it to the transporter then I think it would go a long way.
*i still find it odd that duplicates could be made using the same mass of the original would not each be reduced by half both in size and mass...which would be pretty hard to ignore...there is also no way of knowing who would get what memories or how they would be combined and reintegrated after the transport process had taken place.*
@@scottmantooth8785 How they are not reduced in size and mass is easy. Just like the replicators the copies are being built from a stockpile of extra matter on a sub-atomic scale. The body from the original being transported, along with all waste products on the ship are recycled to make new things.
That replicated steak you had for dinner was the dump you took that morning. Broken down into protons, neutrons, and electrons then reassembled as needed.
This is also why replicated food isn't as good as real food. Transporters don't keep the patterns for long due to the massive amount of memory they take but the replicators are lower resolution copies as they just need to be good enough to be eatable rather than a perfect copy.
What a crock! They are what they are. The people who've come up with these 'theories' have way too much time on their hands. I just enjoy trek. It really is that simple.
Except the transporter thing is a valid point. It does effectively kill you.
In regards to theory #3 of this list, I have long believed that the shows are historical reenactments of the official logs and that errors and biases from the captains slipped their way in thereby explaining plot holes and inconsistencies. This is why Kirk frequently beams down to planets and is "the hero" even though it makes no sense for the captain to go down (and most other shows keep the captain on the bridge). Also the infamous Voyager episode "Threshold" is merely a very Freudian dream that Tom Paris recorded in his dream diary but due to computer glitches due to lack of maintenance and crazy stuff Voyager went through in the delta quadrant it got accidentally listed as an official ship log by the time Voyager got home.
Can’t any work of fiction be taken in a similar way? I frequently think like that when plot holes defy other explanation
@@eloquentwizard7492 This is effectively my explanation for why Discovery looks more modern than TOS. I called it "Variable Camera, Fixed Scene".
She shows up at 47:34 into the episode.
Uhhh... There are plot holes, and inconsistencies, because it's fictional. The creators at different points over 55 years haven't wanted to be constrained by some made up thing decades ago. People aren't perfect, and neither is fiction.
@@clydemasterson1129 first, everyone knows that. The charge is that it is "fiction" is just an excuse used by the lazy to explain to the teacher why they didn't think doing their book report was a worthwhile use of their time.
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax..."
From the start a brutal take on enterprise. One of the most underrated shows ever.
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, the marketing leading up to the show screwed the show: "No phasers, no transporters," etc... and yet, immediately they had them making everything feel disingenuous. They didn't have a real plan with the first season and we'd all been spoiled with episodic yet connected storytelling. But as a whole, the show had a lot going for it, it was just underserved. Then the higher-ups trying to force things into Trek that were decidedly not Trek, and plot point (the Temporal Cold War) which could have been done well, but was forced to go in directions that did a disservice to the series. However, when the last season came, the higher-ups were done interfering (because they were going to end it), and low and behold it vastly improved and got the ratings that the higher-ups had been wanting... but it was too late, if anything, due to the then pending CW merger.
@@j.rileyindependentproductions some great points. Let's be honest to trek is absolutely famous for starting with terrible seasons and building up. I'd say seasons 3 and 4 of enterprise hold up to any individual season in all of trek.
@@HardlyQuinn I completely agree with Trek usually having lousy first one or two seasons (though my favorite episode, "Measure of a Man" being an episode exception).
I mostly agree with Season Four, and would also mostly agree with three if we were to remove all of the studio-forced influence. Though, minus the shortness of Strange New World's first season (and them solving deep character arcs all within said first season), I'd hazard to say that season has blown any season of Trek out of the water, including final season of Enterprise (minus finale, which would have been great as the last non-finale episode)... And that's coming from a TNG fanboy. lol
Was just getting good as it was cancelled. :(
Enterprise was very good.
Anyone who believes Lt Angela Martin did not re-appear at the end of Shore Leave is NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Yes, she doesn't get a line, but is that a mini-skirted ghost standing next to Rodriguez after McCoy's showgirls went to look for another arm to hook on to?
Also, McCoy has a line of dialogue that confirms this. He says, "That's because nobody had died, Jim."
That's "nobody." Not him, not Angela. Nobody.
Thank you guys. I knew I didn't imagine that scene. I know it was just a show but when I swear I saw something few other people saw I start questioning my sanity. Thank for backing up my story.
"Discovery well recieved ... " lol ... no.
Easily the most hated entry to Trek of any variety. The old PC games are better.
I think the Kirk/Spock thing was disproven by Generations. In a "heaven" of Kirk's own creation it was a woman he was with... not Spock.
I'm not a fan of everyone creating slash theory to prove their not homophobes.
Rationalism remains, though. Let us remain open to evidence for and against this theory. Never conclude.
Evidence in the video is presented to suggest that GR made Kirk & Spock's attitudes toward one another nonplatonic.
Generations came after GR's passing. Antonia (whom we've never heard mentioned by name before) was retconned into Kirk's past. If feelings for Spock would necessarily be given form in the Nexus, then any Kirk had were retconned out.
Additional BTS info: Spock's inclusion was planned for the Enterprise B scenes and, being that he'd already lived to see Enterprise D, I believe he was supposed to turn up at the end too. Nimoy declined to do the movie just for such brief bookend appearances.
So, even if they wanted to film an echo of Spock in the Nexus, they'd have to ask if it's enough to interest Nimoy.
The Kirk Spock thing was disproven by the series. They both had chances to get women, did get women and even under the effects of get high pollen, Spock was chasing vagina.
@@randybaumery5090 you know, there's the whole thing called bisexuality. Some people like both. So they might have a constant, casual thing going on while still chasing after women. Just because someone has a straight partner or a same sex partner it doesn't automagically make them just straight or gay.
@@Sk4lli I could do a critical analysis of Mr Spock and Vulcans in general as written. And they have more in common with smart nerd involuntary celibates then they do with bisexuals. If Mr Spock really wanted Captain Kirk's weiner it would have manifested itself when the plant shot the pollen and made him feel good but instead he wanted him some human woman just like his daddy. If anything Mr Spock loved to date outside of his race if you want to make cultural comparisons
Generations sucked though
I think the Enterprise was more likely holodeck reconstruction of past events rather than simulation. Riker is just watching the events to happend like he would watch some old vhs tapes.
Don't forget Will has also participated as thhips cook known only as Chef and as MACO
In show: indications are Will & Deanna are studying history, not indulging in fiction.
Point of this popular head-canon: prior to greenlighting the series, all evidence shows there was no such Enterprise as NX-01! If we interpret that the whole series is Riker's favorite historical fiction, it's all reconciled, albeit shakily.
@@alm2187 Yea, maybe, tbh iam not sucha big star trek nerd, i know there are people out there to know a LOT and i dident even finished Enterprice, it just dident catch me.
Something to keep in mind is everything concerning Section 31 *couldn't* have been in a holodeck simulation, whether constructed from historical footage or interpolated from logs.
Mm, isn't there a certain statute after which secret service intel gets declassified, @@GSBarlev? I'd estimate NextGen ends 170 years after the Enterprise retcon. Seems long enough for state secrets to become public knowledge. Oh, but you're saying Section 31 never declassifies, per what we learn in DS9?
I'm 100% here for all this existing in Benny Russell's head. Honestly one of the neatest plot twists DS9 came up with. The 1st episode with Benny is such brilliant writing and acting.
A very strong episode with a message still relevant for today. To add to the theory since the book "The Elysian Kingdom" from the strange new worlds episode of the same name is written by Benny Russell. We know he had a writing career after the events of the DS9 episode. Confirming that the asylum bit was a illusion created by the Pah-wraiths to stop Sisco from finding the Orb of the Emissary.
I've been a trick fan since TOS hit send occasion in my area circuit 1974. I was only 5 then. I often dismiss fan theories but this one is absolute genius and I love love it. Appropriate that it's number 1 on this list even though I find top 10 lists subjective at best.
I would discount anything Gene Roddenberry said about Star Trek in later years. Roddenberry changed (and not for the better) after personal contact with the show's fandom at conventions. He began to believe his own hype and began to have delusions of grandeur above what he was. Which was a television producer with a string of quickly cancelled shows and failed pilots. He was booted out of the movie production after ST:TMP underperformed. He was booted out of the production of TNG after it's first two seasons underperformed. He'd say just about anything to get the spotlight for a few minutes.
That brings up quite the discussion; who gets to decide what counts and what does not.
@@bugsyproductions3140 Not really. Star Trek was generated from a work for hire contract. It always belonged Desilu Productions and then it's successors. Today CBS/Paramount. Roddenberry might have had an opinion. It just held zero weight and could and was overruled by the studio, who did own Star Trek. Shades of 'Shut Up Wesley!' from TNG.
@@lokisgodhi yes, really. You just tried to dictate things yourself with your claims. We don’t all have to abide by it. You’re also only discussing specific part of Star Trek with the studio thing. Just because they claim something doesn’t mean it has to be inherently accepted just like you have done with Gene. I mean, he purchased then declared the animated series not canon. So by your logic of the studio owning, the animated series isn’t canon. But your logic about gene contradicts that. So in the end, yes really.
@@lokisgodhi it’s also curious how you state Genes opinion held zero weight (not entirely true btw. It definitely held weight just not as much) yet look at your comments. They’re presented as though they hold a lot of weight and should be inherently accepted. It’s a philosophical issue not an ownership issue. But again, if we go latter then your logic is contradictory. Again, gene made the purchase and said animated series was not canon - by your logic of studio owns = studio dictates everything then it’s definitely not canon. Now we add in your claims about Gene and not taking him serious for your personal beliefs about him. Do you see how this isn’t nearly as black and white as you present it? It’s also odd to criticize Gene for those things when Hollywood studios are run in the same fashion. Why does that logic not apply to the studio?
Gene made the purchase, immediately declared animated series non canon.
The animated series has been tied into other ST shows as of late.
So is it canon or not? He owned it 1000000%, declared it not to be. Studio now seems to be on the other side and thinks it is. Which one is right? If canon changes based off ownership then again, it ties into the discussion of who gets to dictate what. See the issue now?
@@bugsyproductions3140 The animated series is owned by CBS/Paramount. Not Roddenberry. His opinion on it being not canon, was just that, his opinion. Held zero weight. He never bought it. It's still owned by CBS/Paramount. That's why they're able to use things from in in their new series, Lower Decks.
#7 - The issue (one of them anyway) with the comparison of Star Trek Matter-Energy transporters to the 'every cell gets replaced over time anyway' is that the latter isn't true. Your nerve and brain cells in particular don't get replaced, otherwise everyone would lose all their memories over time. Also, even if they did work that other way, it would be gradual, you'd exist as a continuum. The vast majority being the same on any given day, with the replaced part filling in the holes and incorporated into the whole It's like the Ship of Theseus, minus the 'original parts being preserved to construct another ship of Theseus later' conundrum. In this hypothetical situation, with a brain that gradually replaces itself over time, it would be like the Theseus ship being replaced part by part. Its identity as the ship of Theseus would remain intact, whereas the matter-energy transporter situation would be like obliterating the ship with a large explosion and then seamlessly gluing it back together in a way that leaves only the faintest evidence that it was reassembled; it looks and functions identically.
I mean, in the show there have been examples where due to some circumstance or another, a copy of an existing person was created using the transporter signature. A well known example is the Riker duplicate that ended up living a separate life from the Enterprise Riker. It shows that the copy stored in the transporter buffer is just that; a copy. Given sufficient material (energy) and the right circumstances it can make duplicates. It's a glorified 3D fax machine & shredder combo.
I'm definitely in the camp of 'Matter-Energy transporters kill people'. It doesn't matter, IMO, whether a perfect copy of you gets recreated after the fact; you do not exist anymore. The you that stepped on to the transporter dies. The identical replacement then takes over your life and feels and is treated the same as you were. Don't misunderstand me though, the duplicates are still people and everything, but for me the only situation where I'd use that tech on myself is if the alternative is certain death anyway. It would be sort of an enhanced inheritance system, where my duplicate would inherit my life, and would appreciate it just as if they were me.
This is why I'm more of a fan of space folding transporter tech that some Star Trek races use. That bypasses these horrific implications.
I would agree that the transporter kills a person, and makes a clone if Star Trek was based entirely on Physics as we understand it today. Star Trek is, however, Science Fiction, and is not constrained by anything that we consider to be Scientific fact. The transporter in an entirely fictional franchise is perfectly capable of metaphysically, or perhaps "magically" transporting a person without killing them. My point is perfectly demonstrated by the writers of this fictional show, who invented the Heisenberg Compensators, one of the parts in a transporter system. Based on the Physics we understand today such a device cannot exist. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is absolute, and cannot be circumvented based on our current scientific understanding. Another example of "magical" technology in Star Trek are the Inertial Dampeners, which is a device used to counteract the effect of instantaneous rapid acceleration to near light speeds. Science says that a device such as this cannot exist.
We've seen in the ST universe that minds can exist outside of bodies under a variety of circumstances. It's plausible (basically confirmed by one of the Barclay episodes) that the transporter can contain this "mind energy", fully functioning, for at least a short time.
So basically, souls exist in Trek, and can be stuffed back into a new body after the original is destroyed, at least under properly controlled circumstances.
Souls can also be made by machinery, as shown with Lt. Riker. So this is not the Christian-type soul made by an advanced god, but a more naturalistic use of the word -- if years of life experience can "grow" a soul, why can't precise tech build one?
@@ButterfatFarms Not sure if you're serious. I think being dead is a pretty significant thing to have happen to you or people in general.
@@clydemasterson1129 TNG already disproved the clone theory
@@edwarddeguzman3258 I'm not entirely sure what you're referencing, but it's safe to say that if they write something into the show, then it's true in the show's context.
I like the idea of us living in the mirror universe. Also: none of Star Trek actually happened. It's a TV show.
Wow that's crazy!
Blasphemy! 😉
I've got to disprove the Angela Martine theory. She did return in Star Trek's final episode "Turnabout Intruder" as communications officer Angela, over two years after her "death" in the episode "Shore Leave."
No one died on the shore leave planet. The Caretaker brought everyone back to life.
Furthermore, other commenters report that she's in a very brief shot in Shore Leave post-resurrection. (It may even be in this video!)
Related nit to pick: McCoy experiences resurrection in this episode. Much later, in Voyage Home, he'd ask how Spock's was. Spock says (paraphrased) "you'd need to have gone through one to understand what I'm talkin' 'bout." So why doesn't Bones say he HAS? 🤣
What is the internal chronology? TOS aired out of order in terms of internal chronology. Chekov, for example, is well documented as having been part of the Enterprise crew prior to the events of Space Seed when you put the episodes in order of internal chronology instead of broadcast date order.
Same actor, different character.
I'd sooner watch enterprise than discovery or Picard...
Angela Martine did come back to life with Doctor McCoy at the end of "SHORE LEAVE" but her reapearnce was so short you could blink and miss it. However "SHORE LEAVE" was her last episode in the classic Star Trek series.
Thanks for the note about her return scene. Far as her not showing up again, though, take it up with the other commenter who claims she was in Turnabout Intruder.
The actress was in that later episode, but she was playing a different character.
I rember seeing her standing back with Rodriguez again in Shore Leave right after McCoy walks over with the two Show Girls. However it is true she played a different character in Turn About Intruder.
Long and short if it all I was correct to say she returned from the dead in Shore Leave however I was wrong to it was the actresses last episode.
She is referred to as Angela Teller in Shore Leave. Kirk addresses her by name when he first beams down.
I love Star Trek Enterprise.
No season of Discovery happened. Period... but on another note, did you say Kirk and Spock are lovers? This channel. Jesus.
No, Rhoddenberry might have been gay, but no thank you, I'm with the people who said it's NOT a good idea to have Kirk and Spock as lovers.
I would never have watched the series.
The Mirror Universe theory is on pretty shaky ground since the Prime universe frequently references the events of the current era, as well as many problems before Earth came together and united as one planet - The Eugenics Wars, the 2020s, WWIII, the difficulty of creating a post-scarcity society, etc.
The Benny Russell is God theory? Absolutely brilliant, and fits into the fact that Benjamin Sisko is a Jesus allegory.
I think Strange New Worlds categorically disproves the Mirror Universe theory, I think in the first episode or two? It shows actual footage of actual events and doesn't shy away from them.
Hell, if anything, it PREDICTS and confirms that we would be in the Prime when it comes to Sanctuary districts, seeing as those are literally being suggested today. As well as many cities poorest areas are resembling them in all but name, minus the barricades around the whole area
Only complaint I got. I absolutely loved Enterprise .
Me too. Well I liked it alot. Loves a little strong but I don't get the hate it gets.
The most insane theory was that Discovery was generally well received.
I thought it was pitched as wagon train to the stars! Not a horror anthology!!!! Wtf are you smoking?????
@@OldManYellsAtClouds yes I'm aware of that. I have just never heard that horror anthology disguised as Science Fiction was ever any intent of the show. But thank you for your input.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds she is the final editor
@@topogigio7031 great 👍
Enterprise is my favorite Trek series, and as such I don't appreciate you throwing such shade upon its good name.
I like Enterprise. I don’t love it. But I like it!
@@bobnope457 It's perfectly fine to not hold ENT in the highest regard, or even to dislike it. I just dont appreciate the host of the video inserting her own opinions into this video as if they are facts that the majority of the fan base agrees with. This is true on multiple points in the video, especially with the point she tried to make against the Old Testament God. Suffice it to say that I am not a fan of Ellie as a host on this channel.
@@bobnope457 Same here. It wasn't the best spinoff, but all the hate it was getting was mostly unfounded.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds she didn't write it but as presenter she is the final editor.
You don't see these issues with the other presenters. There is a reason why most of the other presenters write their own videos but Ellie needs someone to tell her what to say
Wow these are lame “theories” and you guys are way too excited about them.
One of my old pet theories was the prime directive came about due to botched first contact with the Klingons, that they had help them advance too quickly and have sworn off ever doing that again. Basically this came out of the idea that it seems like the Klingons would leave any kid to die in the forest who showed signs of interest in science or math that they would have needed to develop for space travel. Also when ever talking about why they have the prime directive they always go in hushed tones that bad things happen when you mess with a culture development, that it seemed to me to be something that is still effecting the Federation to this day.
I'm 100% on board for the theory that we are the Mirror Universe (although I insist on calling it the Dark universe).
Great list. Great video.
You're thinking of LEXX
Compared to modern Trek, Enterprise was a masterpiece.
I have to say this is the first time I couldn't finish a TrekCulture video. The ignorance and silliness was too much for me. Honestly, most of these theories are completely ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not that into Star Trek anymore. There was a time when theories like these would peak my interest, but now I just can't help but think, "It's a TV show. Please stop." Maybe it's inevitable that watching the same thing over and over leads to creating these ridiculous head-canon narratives to keep it interesting. I just watch and enjoy what is presented.
The transporters don't kill you, they were a convenient and budget-friendly way of moving the plot along smoothly (not to mention the episode of TNG that actually shows us what happens inside the beam). Trek history mentions all of our past mistakes, so no, we aren't in the mirror universe, we are in the REAL universe. Not to mention that point of Star Trek was to show how humanity could overcome past mistakes to make a better future. Fan theories can be fun but these feel like they were plucked from the far corners of the cesspool of reddit just to create some content. I love you TrekCulture, but this isn't your best list.
In the great words of Mystery Science Theater, "Repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show. I should really just relax.'"
It's not you, it's the posers.
People like Ellie get jobs reading memes and making videos of the results. These are shallow videos because they are done by shallow people.
tldr; Zoomers have ruined society with their extreme nihilism and self-destruction. They are a generation of ruin. Ellie has the personal belief that nothing in the world matters, including the lives of her family, so why would she care about Trek?
The title does say they're "INSANE" theories. Do you draw some distinction between insane theories and ridiculous theories?
@@alm2187 That's a fair assessment. After I left my comment I re-read the title and said the same thing to myself. I guess they delivered on the promise after all 😆
I always took t'hy'la to mean a bond closer than friendship, closer than brotherhood. Doesn't mean they hop into the sack, though, that's something different again.
The transporter theory section showed a clip from the episode "Realm of Fear", which completely debunks it. Barclay and several other crewmembers are shown repeatedly to be conscious and aware of the entire transporting process. In addition, the only thing that the stellar gases did was make the process longer.
It's more that the Realm of Fear transport premise raises many questions at best or is nonsense at worst. Transport takes all molecules apart, turns them into energy, and reconstitutes them elsewhere, correct? So how can a lifeform experiencing it remain conscious and move around?
(Even if we can explain the inside view of the transport beam, we can't prove they're continuously conscious. It's same token as how sometimes you come to and your timepieces all confirm you were asleep longer than you thought you were.)
Associated case study: transportation in TWoK.
Captain Terrell presumably beams off a flat transporter pad. So how has he struck the Captain Morgan pose when he materializes on the rocky planet? Did his transport Chief instruct him on how to position his leg safely for where he'd land?
In another scene, Saavik can be heard talking during transport. So it's not strictly necessary to pause a conversation before beaming?
If we accept Realm of Fear at face value, it may explain these scenes! Yes, you can talk and move mid-beam, so perhaps the Cap simply saw where the rock-jetty was and raised his leg accordingly. 😎
We're still left with the mystery: HOW can perception persist when you're inside the transporter beam?
This, otherwise killing someone for a few seconds and reconstructing them would be seen as fucked up. Even if functionally it was a brief second of death. Bones' fear is medically induced, due to the idea of potentialy detremental effects of subspace travel, and barkleys is of anxiety about the helplessness of it all, in a similar way to most phobias relating to travel, that even if it's unlikely something goes wrong, there's such a minimal risk anything will that it's negligable to most people, but in truth in most of the occassions of malfunctions or sabotage or disruptions there's physically nothing you can do about it as you are already trapped within the vehicle (in this case a pocket of subspace)
I've been pondering the effects of transporters for years now, if they were to be taken out of their sci-fi setting and put into reality. And my conclusion is that it would only amount to an overly complicated cloning device that would be set to destroy the original. Even if the matter is converted to data and then sent to another area to be re-constituted, (which is the de-facto description of how transporters work) that new body would not be the original. I'd even go on to say that you could get rid of the process where you destroy the original entirely. Which HAS happened a few (?) times in the series. Now I don't care too much about references to the show stating anything for or against this theory of mine, since in the end it is only a work of fiction and no matter how good the writer is, there will always be holes in logic and contradictions. I'm just saying that if teleporters existed IRL, I would want nothing to do with them, other then to hack duplicates of useful items into existence. Like food or valuable materials. Putting a living being through the full process of teleportation would be unethical at best. Portals would be more acceptable, as they seek to create shortcuts in space/time instead of dismantling/rebuilding things.
MUCH older than that-- The question of whether the transporter was killing people was raised by McCoy in the James Blish book "Spock Must Die". I realize the books aren't necessarily "canon", especially this one given how it ended, but the book was certainly widely read, being the first "original" Star Trek book post-cancellation.
No it really doesn't. The continuous consciousness could also be an illusion. If a transporter happens in a blink of an eye, your consciousness could be disrupted, literally, between a blink of an eye without you knowing it but since the transported copy is a perfect copy the consciousness would still appear to be continuous.
Actually, Star Trek began as a space western and was pitched as such by Rodenberry, not a horror anthology.
Well...kind of.
Roddenberry was courting potential script writers who had extensive experience with Westerns, crime dramas, hospital shows and such, but not a lot of experience with science fiction. So he pitched it to them by saying "Don't think of it as 'science fiction;' think of it more like 'Wagon Train,' but in outer space."
And then either Herb Solow or Bob Justman (I forget which) refined that concept as "WagonTrain to the stars," and it stuck.
Roddenberry wanted to do adult-oriented science fiction, in the vein of 'The Outer Limits' and 'Twilight Zone,' but with recurring characters and situations; that's probably where the "horror anthology" misconception originates, as both shows had aspects of science fiction as well as fantasy and horror.
Tom Paris IS Nick licarno
Nick lacarno is probably just an alias
@@chrisinnes2128 I think it's the other way around since Nick was the name he used at the academy and Tom was the name he used when Janeway found him, in a poolhall if memory serves. Pretty sure a big organization like Starfleet would know what your real name is. Also it's not really a theory as the writers have actually said they intended it to be the same character but a rights issue or something made them decide to change the name
I definitely think Enterprise was heavily hinted to have been a holodeck simulation the entire time due to the reveal that the chef was Riker. The chef being constantly referred to throughout the series links to Riker visiting the simulation on a regular basis
Q created humanity by wiggling his fingers in some goo!
My crazy theory is that star trek enterprise is just an extended episode of quantum leap. And Sam Beckett must form the federation before he can leap again.
Well..
Dean Stockwell does guest star in one episode, so...🤔😉
#6 is the laziest theory and the most easily debunked. Watch the episode. At the end when Spock says he'll return to the Enterprise and passes the cabaret girl to Sulu he walks in front of both Lt. Rodriguez and Lt. Angela Martine standing together, very much alive. Try harder, TrekCulture.
A lot of these "theories" are just hater fantasies...
I have a theory about the ending to Voyager, which I have seen similar mentioned online before, that the events of Endgame in Voyager create a paradox loop with the events of Endgame happening over and over again.
It starts as we know with older Janeway who travels back in time to bring Voyager home early, which ultimately succeeds. As this is a success Janeway doesn't at any time travel back to bring Voyger home early as this is no longer necessary, which creates a paradox. How can Voyager be home early if Janeway never went back in time to bring Voyager home early?
If we get to the time period in the future when Janeway is supposed travel back in time to bring Voyager home early but she doesn't as she thinks there would not be a need to in this reality or she does know to do it but forgets to or can't for whatever reason, this undoes the events of Endgame and the timeline resets to the start of Endgame again and Voyager and the timeline in the Star Trek universe ends up in a never ending loop caused by this one event.
Older Janeway is part of an alternate timeline where Voyager arriving late did happen. Janeway went back in time and changed all that and should have just vanished if this was a singular timeline, but my guess it is an alternate timeline, as older Janeway did not return to her time but was killed by the borg queen.
Speaking of alternate timelines, Seven was heterosexual and wanted to date men throughout Voyager seasons and wants to hook up with Chakoutay, but now with Picard show she is either gay or bisexual showing interest in Raffi. I blame it on "alternate timeline writers" who don't respect the Canon depiction of a character from previous series. Times have indeed changed!
If time is not actually a one-way arrow and is allowed to curve back on itself, you can still end up avoiding paradoxes by bringing in chaos theory--not the butterfly flapping it's wings nonsense, but the works of Poincaré and Lorenz and the math of periodic orbits and strange attractors.
To save you the PhD--systems that are chaotic or have the potential for chaos will often have stable trajectories (orbits) where if they land on that path, they won't leave. So if the Prime timeline is such an attractor, all other nearby timelines will bend themselves so that subsequent "orbits" (causality loops) land on that timeline. So Endgame, Picard, Yesterday's enterprise, and every other "dark future of the week" episode shows a given universe converging on the Prime timeline.
Time travel in Trek is silly but makes a crazy kind of sense sometimes, if Janeway travels from timeline A to timeline B it'd create a new timeline C that has two Janeways and no paradox. To quote Yoda, always in motion is the future, in other words future Janeway didn't come from 'THE' future, she came from 'A' future, and since no time cops showed? Who knows, maybe it was meant to happen.
@@adrianvanleeuwen It was never ever stated that Seven was only interested in men. We saw her be interested in men, sure, but there's no possible way to know that she wasn't also into women.
Plus lots of people realise late in life that they are gay or bi. Often after several straight relationships that don't work out.
20 odd years have passed since she was interested in Chakotay and she's clearly changed in a lot of ways in that time. Entirely reasonable that she came to realise during that time that she preferred or also liked women.
@@adrianvanleeuwen There was a Seven quip in a Voyager episode where she does allude to being bi or pansexual. I can't remember which one, tho. It was something along the lines of it being illogical to limit oneself to a certain gender preference.
The Benny Russell theory would match a similar element of Marvel's cosmic structure:
The ability known as Comics Awareness: certain characters in the comics are aware (for various reasons, as there's more than one path to this enlightenment) that they are fictional characters. Deadpool is the most well-known, although the Blonde Phantom, She-Hulk, Gwenpool, and Rick Jones have the same ability. Gwenpool is supposedly from our universe, and has the knowledge (secret identities, etc.) a comics reader from our universe has, other than traveling from the "real" to Marvel universe and back, doesn't influence events. She-Hulk and Deadpool have persuaded their writers/artists/editors to change plot elements in the comic as they happen, and the Blonde Phantom and She-Hulk have torn through a page, crossed a two-page ad (one of the people they took along scraped his shin on one of the staples) and tore back into another panel later in the comic, and Rick Jones persuaded the seven Friendless (a parody of DC's Endless) to intervene and change the outcomes of events brought on by the cancellation of the Captain Marvel comic to give everyone happy endings.
DC comics had a similar story line where Animal Man was able to journey through a realm inhabited by cancelled, half-forgotten comics characters and pass into the real world, where he met the writer of his comic (Grant Morrison) and persuaded them to undo the events that had resulted in the death of Animal Man's family, which they were willing to do partially because it was the last issue of Animal Man's comic that Grant would be writing. This later led to the creation of a being in the DC universe called The Writer, who could influence events by writing about them on his computer, but who was, as a fictional character, also subject to the whims of the writers creating the comic in which The Writer appeared. They got killed off by being featured in an issue of Suicide Squad and being attacked and killed by an opponent who was able to attack more quickly than The Writer could create plot elements to fend it off.
To me, the Thomas Riker debacle in Second Chances (I say "debacle" because I loathe the episode's concept) confirmed that beaming kills the person being transported and creates a copy of them on the other end. If it were just moving a person from one location to another, then Thomas Riker would have been impossible.
YUP. If it is ever invented in my lifetime, I will NEVER voluntarily enter a transporter.
Glorified photocopier
Yeah, but then the one where Barclay grabs those slug-dudes in the matter stream suggests the person is actually physically traveling through some kind of a physical place.
Star Trek isn't consistent enough with its science to say one way or another.
@@tetravega567 No, more like a combo fax machine/shredder
Enterprise *cannot* just be a holodeck simulation.
In season 2, we see the remnants from the Borg sphere from First Contact. This event happens after The Pegasus, so how could Riker have seen that in an "episode".
Fan theories are stupid.
Enterprise in my opinion was sure better than Voyager
Discovery “well received.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's very worth reading Roddenberry's preface - written 'as' Admiral Kirk writing his memoirs - to the novelization of ST:TMP, (which was the source for the "T'hy'la" coinage. Alas, Roddenberry immediately backpedaled on the 'lovers' interpretation - make your own mind up about how much of that was Roddenberry himself and how much was making sure the rerun royalties kept coming in. The preface also suggests that the episodes of TOS are a dramatization based on the ships logs, and one that Kirk finds overly lurid. Depending on whether you want this part of Roddenberry's novelization to be canonical or not, this makes Point 3 - the "in-universe TV show" - more than just a wild fan hypothesis, at least where TOS is concerned.
For me things we see on screen far outweigh things stated off screen. In "Generations" we see Kirk's version of perfect happiness was living in a cabin with his girlfriend... not Spock.
@@Linerunner99 Kirk was always the ladies man and preferred the company of women romantically. Scenes of Kirk with Spock on film, only showed them as great friends and like brothers never more.
One complication there, @@Linerunner99
The concept of crews from the A and the D in crossover was, I hazard, the sharpest shift from Gene's mandates yet. It's hard to speculate on what he'd have thought of The Nexus and what Kirk would have experienced in it.
@@alm2187 Long before Gene died he was already often being overruled. It's the burden of asking a studio to fund your show. They become the final say in it. He was left alone to do his thing mostly, but if they saw something they didn't like would step in and simply tell him no.
Why did you call Star Trek a “Dramedy”? Dramedy means drama comedy.
The Flintstones & Trek are the same universe... Gazoo = Q
"While Discovery has been well received..." lol. No.
one theory that i always liked was that the entire q continuüm was only 1 being with a split personality.
At the end of Bab 5 it shows someone from our distant future watching the events of the TV series, before finally turning into a ball of light and floating away!
In Star Wars, it does make sense that the prequels look flashier. It takes place during a time before the empire basically took over. So everything is brighter, more colorful, and newer looking. After the takeover everything gets darker, harsher, and more gloomy. It was a smart move.
Also technology gets repressed to maintain Imperial control.
@@shinjisan2015 true.
Also, the less-efficient Imperial economy means shortages and business failures. Old stuff is kept going instead of being replaced. Funds are diverted to insane "prestige" projects instead of being available for routine maintenance.
Anyone from an Iron Curtain nation (or, increasingly, the US) will know about all of this.
@@shinjisan2015 Help, help, I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
do your research, Angela appears in the final Planetside scene of "Shore leave" they just do not make a big deal of her coming back like with McCoy since she is a minor supporting character. Also you should not give Roddenberry credit for other people's work it was Alen Dean Foster that created the word Thyl'a but hey don't let the facts get in the way of your making up the idea that Kirk and Spock were bisexual... please go on...
Creators often like to give a "rational" explanation to viewers who don't believe it. As in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Joss Whedon wrote a story that explains to us that the whole universe of the Buffy serie and the Angel serie happens in the head of a poor girl interned in an asylum. At the end of the episode; you have to make your choice…
Oh, and don't be too politically correct: Discovery wasn't well received at all.
Star Trek V was entirely in Kirk's head after his fall off of El Capitan. My reasoning is that the whole movie starts and ends in at the campsite and that all of the inconsistencies are all dreamlike in the cinematography.
Are you joking? Enterprise is great and canon...
The shows who had a very bad reception are Disco and Picard.
And for good reasons, they sucks...
The line of Enterprises starts with boats, then there's the space shuttle, then the ring-ship, then the original starship. That's NCC-1701. There is no NX-01. How can the Enterprise show be canon when it's founded on an inconsistency?
Not that there's any right or wrong. Showrunners can make creative changes like that if they want.
Opinion: "Enterprise is great..."
If you already knew the change I pointed out above, your opinion suggests one of two things.
1. You opine that it's a good change. 🙂
2. You don't think it's a good change, but you forgive it because you like the show as a whole. 🙂
When Discovery was unfolding, I estimated it's actually MORE consistent with established continuity than Enterprise.
* no source I know of says there wasn't a secret ship called Discovery that vanished in a vortex
* Pike orders conversion back to flat viewscreens, thus explaining why Enterprise has them in TOS
* uniforms are 3D-printed, thus I head-canonize that "ship's stores" can mean databanks, so Kirk can order NAZI uniforms in the unexpected event that his crew finds a planet where everyone's wearing them
Not that it's as simple as a counting game, but we can also tally up apparent inconsistencies.
But head canon can plug any plot-hole. We can also fault-find a story thought to be perfect.
Between Berman and Kurtzman, which man gave us spinoffs that are more consistent with the original? That can only be addressed by reasoning and analysis.
Which era does someone like more? That's a separate question. It's only an illusion that reason enters into it.
Here's the best and most certainly true Star Trek hypothesis...
It's all fiction.
And a collection of history books is just a collection of history books. We can still ask how we can be sure of any of it. We can check them for consistency. We can ask what the authors wanted us to believe.
Analyzing fictional events is good mental exercise.
Discovery is well received lol 😂
I do agree with theory three but from the other angle. The reason the show looks so different is that they are visual portraits to us.
*1, TOS Enterprise as a military vessel. Unless its specially commissioned (like the space shuttle) its going to be bare bones to keep cost down.
*2, TNG's Enterprise was a purpose built Presidential plane. It had to function as both battle ship and a cruse liner.
*3, DS9 was an acquired military base. It looked like someone took a cold war era building in East Germany and tried to build it into something more welcome hotel with mall and conference center.
*4, Voyager while being flung far from its home had been planed as a long term vessel. It was the Space Shuttle and International Space Station minus the planned ability to replace things that break. 2004 Battlestar Galactica did it better, but that wouldn't have worked for UPN for the same reason as the Year of Hell.
*5, Enterprise was an experimental ship It was meant to have missing bulk heads, wiring hanging from the walls an ceiling and exposed pipes for a reason. Because we had not figured out how to hide that stuff while still being able to get to it all.
*6, Every thing after this is polished to a shine because its what we expect from a movie studio looking to sell us something that isn't a 1950's B movie or 1930's serial.
In other words starting with the 2007 movie every thing after Enterprise is fake. The dramatization, fancy sets and special effects are added to sell the product.
Another explanation for why there's suddenly an Enterprise before NCC-1701: Zef Cochrane saw the ship's shape and heard Deanna tell him its name. He influenced whatever corps of engineers first began to build starships.
HOWEVER...
Check any source from before the 90s. All the ones I've seen strongly suggest humanity gets at least as far as Alpha Centauri in sleeper ships. Cochrane was born there and would go on to break the light barrier.
I'm guessing you're referring to novels which aren't canon to the main shows and movies. My head canon is that Enterprise isn't technically a prequel to TOS but a parallel universe created by the interactions in First Contact, no major differences due to how limited most of the interactions were but enough to make subtle changes which explains the parts that don't line up with TOS.
Another explanation for an Enterprise before NCC-1701?? You mean like the ancient tallship HMS Enterprise, or the aircraft carrier or the spaceshuttle??? NO HOW COULD THIS BE?! Must be a paralell universe because I don't like something about it so therefore everyone else can't have fun. Trek fans are ridiculous. All of star trek is in a different universe (the Benny Russle theory for example) but also because there were no eugenics wars in the 90s and there is no manned mission to Europa anytime soon let alone 2024 and hopefully no world war that kills millions. We need to stop using the "alternate universe" excuse to try and force the trek we personally want onto others, that's just gatekeeping and childish.
Uh...no, no novels, @@GrimmShadowsII
Yes on the part where First Contact consistency is head-canon territory, though. April's/Pike's/Kirk's starship Enterprise is the first. Picard & crew go back in time. This results in a new timeline with a new first Enterprise called NX-01.
The part where First Contact is a great, big face-palm:
* Kirk recognizes "Zeframe Cochrane of Alpha Centauri," strongly suggesting ZC was born there
* when rescuing crash survivors in the Talos system, Enterprise crewmembers tell them "you won't believe how fast" the return trip will be. (Granted there's a lot to talk about on this point, though.)
* Botany Bay is a sleeper ship, suggesting this was the original standard for interstellar travel
* even some of NextGen is about finding out what happened to early settlers, such as the Irish colony which may have predated warp drive (though, here again, it's a question of if any star systems besides Alpha Centauri are somehow reachable at sub-light speeds)
* the Star Trek Technical Manual is THE ONLY REFERENCE saying Zef emigrated from Earth to Alpha Centauri, and it was published after First Contact was greenlit. Other books I've been able to check (not novels) word it in a way that implies that Z.C. is not from Earth
All that's missing is a clear statement of where he was born that dates back before the 1990s. There are other ways they got lazy with the premise of First Contact, too.
Who'd a thought "love" has one definition 😜 certainly not the ancient Greeks, only Americans.
I always imagined the 'god' character of Star Trek V similar to Q, if not exactly, the Nacene species (the Caretaker/Suspiria)
Then put in isolation for manipulating many in the Milky Way, instead of helping, by his peers, they themselves from another plane "Exosia". (Continuum?)
Who's to say these aren't the same with their similarities,
as our ol' boy Q embellishes everything, maybe he self describes more theatrically than realistically as the Nacene seen in Voyager.
Who sits around and thinks up these theories or gives them creedence? "Enterprise" isn't generally hated, although the last so-called episode of "Enterprise" about Riker's broken holodeck adventure is generally ignored. If you think there were continuity problems with "Enterprise", then you haven't watched SNW as it supposedly "prequels" TOS. For example, SNW ignores or insults the TOS episodes, "Amok Time," "Arena," even "Naked Time," and most recently, "Balance of Terror" and Kirk's behavior in that episode. And while "The Cage" wasn't shown as a standalone episode for years on TV, it was essentially shown as a two-parter as "The Menagerie" in the first season of TOS. Where have you been?
All in all, I'm sorry I listened to this.
To address if Enterprise is generally hated more than other shows, we'd need to analyze opinion polls, statistical surveys, aggregate scores, etc.
Calling it the black sheep is plausible. TrekCulture would just have done well to cite some poll results that say so.
I don't recall TrekCulture asking my opinion, lol
Well Roddenberry saying Kirk and Spock were lovers is an all out lie. Roddenberry explicitly stated in his novel The Motion Picture that they were not. When other novelists tried to depict them as such, Roddenberry shot them down and forbade them to publish the story. Soul mate does not mean lover. There's no reason to sexualize all forms of love. That's just immature. Kirk and Spock's love as far beyond the inaneness of sexuality.
Horror anthology??? Yeah ima go ahead and ignore that. And is this girl a legit trekkie...nahhhhh just sign me up. Yeah I'm a normal guy with tatts and a mowhawk
For real. So many of us actual Trekkies could do a better job with these lists in a casual conversation, yet they hire someone that has literally zero knowledge of the subject
@@topogigio7031 agree 100%. Been watching trek for almost 35 yrs. The vid was a joke imo.
..... the red Angel at no point was ever considered to be a god-like character. It is quite literally Michael Burnham's mother with advanced technology. Jesus Christ did the writers of this show even pay attention to the Star Trek Canon
What a shrill voice. I gave it 30 seconds and ended viewing
Captain Kirk and captainspock had a brotherly love they were like brothers they were best friends that it was not sexual how dare someone suggest that it is very offensive to suggest something like that and I don't even think the Vulcans are capable of that with their 7 year mating cycle that's all about procreation is very animal like but going into heat or something Balkans aren't even capable of having casual sex so but Spock is half human so maybe he is it's possible for him but both of them has always been attracted to women they both had relationships with women now Spock it's haunted had even in the original series that has had a few relationships we didn't get to on screen but there's been a few times when spot got the girl
That much of Star Trek is an in-universe TV show isn't so much a fan theory as an obscure bit of trivia. The Captains Log monolog was created by Roddenberry collaborator Herb Solow. It's purpose was to establish that the audience was even further in the future watching the past adventures of the crew. This fact also explains why Khan recognized Chekov in Wrath of Khan. The stardates in TOS show that the series did not air in chronological order. When you rearrange the episodes by internal chronology instead of air date, it becomes well established that Chekov was part of the Enterprise crew long before the events of Space Seed and that he was merely one of many crew members that didn't get any screen time during the episode.
This is the kind of interesting stuff that TrekCulture should be making videos about (and have in the past, to be fair). I also thoroughly enjoy the behind the scenes pieces and why certain decisions were made. The commentaries and documentaries that are part of the TNG blue-ray release are very intriguing.
And, the use of a framing device to put your audience even further into the future was already being used in science fiction. Isaac Asimov and Frank Herbert both did it in their Foundation and Dune series of books.
Interestingly, Babylon 5 actually did do this. In the series finale, it's revealed that the entire 5 year run of the show has been a dramatic reenactment of the "actual" history of the station.
@@lionofhighpark I think that may actually be reading too much into the finale. The video montage at the end of the show was all the behind the camera crew. I see that as more of an extended closing credits so that everyone on the show got at least a moment of screen time. Not just the actors. A better argument for B5 is in the opening credits monolog. They were all written in the past tense. The narrator is telling the audience what has already happened.
@@KyleWitten The bit I was referring to is in the title card before the end credits "for those of you who have been archiving this ISN Special Documentary, the people responsible .." which frames the series as an in universe documentary by ISN. Your point about the opening monologue being a past tense narrator is absolutely part of that. Good catch.
"certain members" ... the VAST majority of us lol ... you know ... star trek fans lol ...
The longevity and expansiveness of the Star Trek reality in relation to Benny is just strong evidence that Benny's not real.
It's interesting to imagine DS9 as an original literary series, but it's also a stretch.
Voyager's the first tie-in and NextGen's the first prequel? Or what?
DS9 establishes that Benny's reality is just the Pah-Wraiths' attempt (which ultimately fails) to dominate Sisko's mind. If you want to make it more than an inner struggle with mind invaders, say they transport Sisko's consciousness to a pocket reality or even a whole alternate reality.
Benny was thus given a window into the Star Trek universe with some influence, not control over it.
If ST and SW and WH40K and Dr. Who can produce massive amounts of material, why not the "Russell-verse"?
Consider this. Benny Russell is an direct ancestor of Benjamin Sisko.
Maybe ancestral memory goes both ways.
Lol the Pike Theory is utter Bullshit as Pike enters the "zoo" way AFTER the events of Discovery season 2.
It was never a horror anthology. Could you please talk less and just introduce the clips instead. I just gave up watching you just drone on and on.
People try to apply real-world physics to Star Trek technology which is, for all intents and purposes, one step removed from magic.
Transporters aren't quantum cloning machines, they literally take a person apart Lego-style and rebuild them somewhere else.
Except sometimes, when you can still be a whole and complete person in the matter stream.
Or those times when you can carry on a conversation while beaming... etc.
lmao found the poser that didn't take a single physics class.
Transporters are literally being designed in actual labs this very moment.
And there is not a single instance of someone instantaneously teleporting, it has literally always taken at least an eye-blink of time to complete
Hate you stupid fucking posers trying to diminish the work of authors just because YOU are too stupid to understand
@@topogigio7031
I know that, numbskull. But warp drive on Star Trek is not the same as the Alcubierre metric, transporters do not operate on quantum cloning and evolution is not a predefined roadmap.
Star Trek does not use real world physics.
@@topogigio7031
Was that statement simple enough for you to understand? You didn't seem to be able to read my original comment.
@@topogigio7031 as if the writers of the show from the 60’s would know anything about modern physics! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
if women contain all the eggs they'll ever have from birth, then how do our bodies recycle every seven years ? I have scars that are nearly 40 years old. So, there's no way we're doing that.
Have to give props to the team doing the graphics. I loved the inclusion of the Bajoran Herald newspaper, complete with article condemning Kai Winn as the least popular in Bajoran history. :D
Ellie: Hay Sean, I need a picture of you in a TOS uniform
Sean: Why
Ellie: Don't worry, it will be fine
These are starting to sound like corporate sensitivity training vids
You have to ruin it with lies. Kirk’s son did not die saving Spock. He saved Saavik. It’s been decades but even I know that.
Kirk and spock were not anything but friends this is just way it is
Every cell does not regenerate every 7 years. That is a false theory. While there are some cells that do regulate like blood and skin cells there are other cells that remain with you your entire life such as cells of your central nervous system.
No Kirk and Spock were not gay. They were friends… Don’t be stupid now.
"Star Trek basically created the fandom."
Sherlock Holmes would like a word.
7:00 Sean's look is great
Sucks that it got cancelled, Enterprise was my favourite Star Trek show of all time. Followed by Voyager.
Yeah and TOS was good too.
I quitted watching Next Generation which I found the most boring, and didn't see many seasons of DS9, but not so interested I would go looking for them. I saw all the seasons of Enterprise.
The transporters creator in Enterprise says the transporter doesn't kill you. You are converted to energy and the energy is simply pushed to a new location.
Just like the actual real world theory would work. I hate when people call it magic when in 2022 that's exactly how transportion is theorized to work.
Just be sure there are no flies in the room... wait, wrong transporters