Category: Starlog

In what ways does the U.S.S. Enterprise function as a character, not just a vehicle in Star Trek? Does “she” have a personality? Do the other ships in the Star Trek universe have the same level of character development?

I feel like the Enterprise, like any vehicle or building  – because the Enterprise is a home as well as a method of transport, is a character and has a personality as a result of the ways that the other characters treat her and this is true of other ships in the Star Trek universe and also starbases like DS9.

Scott asks if you think we’re getting closer to realizing the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) here on Earth. What would it take for that to happen? What would it look like? How might things be different?

I don’t really know that the Vulcans realised that philosophy fully themselves – they appear to still trip over their own prejudices especially when it comes to other species and members of their own society who aren’t like the majority.

Perhaps it would take a major crisis where everyone needed to work together for us all to see the value in everyone’s difference and appreciate them.

Why is it important to see yourself on television? Why is television an important subject for scholarly study and how does what we watch shape the world we live in?

It’s important to see yourself represented on television because it helps both you and other see that we are all part of the same society, all equally worthy of having that representation. Seeing ourselves in this way, achieving great goals, even in  a fictional universe, helps us to believe that these things are possible – which in turn helps us to actually make these things possible.

At the end of the video, Margaret says that space exploration was controversial in the 1970s and 1980s. People wondered why the government was spending time and money exploring the solar system when critical problems existed here on Earth. What do you think? Should the government resolve Earthly issues before exploring space? Or is a scientific investigation of distant worlds a fundamentally human endeavor of exploration? Explain your argument.

I think that space exploration is still controversial now, to an extent. There are a lot of things going on in the world – there’s poverty, hunger and disease etc. and often I think many people thing that our endeavours should turn towards solving those problems rather than how to get to Mars.

I think that we should still invest in space exploration – the scientists and engineers who work on these things can’t be redeployed to solve world hunger. That’s not something within their expertise. I’d also say that it’s not necessarily the part where we actually accomplish the end goals of various space exploration projects that we achieve the most. The journey to those goals are where discoveries are made that can be applied to our Earthly issues – the approaches taken to solve space problems allow us to come at terrestrial problems from a different direction that might not have been previously considered.

 

Think of a global issue that we are facing today that causes fear or concern. What would be the plot of a television show that depicted a utopian and optimistic vision of the future of that issue?

A utopian and optimistic vision of the future of the coronavirus issue? Well ideally I would like the plot to show it being resolved with little to no futher loss of life and everyone learning good hygiene practices, employment and healthcare being reformed globally so that people don’t go to work sick and have access to medicine etc.

However, as it’s a tv show, there would probably have to be more drama and urgency conveyed.

Where do you see Artificial Intelligence going? Will it be Data, The Doctor or something new? Do we need to fear it, embrace it or something in between?

I suppose I imagine an Artificial Intelligence might take the form of The Doctor rather than Data – since creating a holographic body would be far easier than creating a robot body and being able to stuff all the brains etc inside that concrete form.

As for what to think of it? I would be wary of it – not necessarily because of itself but more because of its creators. The unconscious (and conscious, for that matter) bias of the programmers, the kinds of data sets that might go into training it…these things would all affect the behaviour of the AI.

 

Scott asked, “What Star Trek technology is on your list of must-haves?” Could the Star Trek universe exist without this type of technology? How would it be better (or worse) with (or without) this technology? Be sure to use evidence to support your argument.

I would love to have a replicator! All the different foods I could eat would be fantastic, especially the ones that are difficult to get where I live, and then to compare them against the “real” thing would be really interesting. I don’t know if the Star Trek universe could exist without this type of technology – in Voyager, they have replicators but due to the energy use (I think) they try not to use them too much and in the Original Series they don’t really seem to have them – just sort of food dispensing units rather than a device that could conjure almost any item. Without replicators, ships would have to carry vast amounts of supplies and need to regularly re-stock – as we saw in Voyager, and maybe also in the Original Series where they had a five year mission, rather than something more open-ended.

Scott also asked, “Who is your favorite Star Trek character?” Feel free to discuss any character from the franchise. Why is this character your favorite? Is it someone you personally connect with? Is it someone who played a particularly powerful role in the franchise? How is this character grounded in the social or political time of his or her creation?

My favourite Star Trek character is Data – I remember watching Next Generation as a child and looking forward to seeing what he would do each week. I’ve enjoyed the journey his character takes – from the first episode he appears in, through the series and films and now seeing the effect he is having on new Star Trek series (particularly in Picard).

In your opinion, what are the benefits of adhering to canon? What creative potential exists in jumping off from it? Where has Star Trek (or other similar franchises) done it well or poorly?

The benefits of adhering to canon are that it makes it easier for different parts of the “universe” to be generated at the same time and still make sense together. It also gives an element of familiarity for new stories and you know how certain things are supposed to work.

I suppose by “jumping off from it” the question is talking about moving away from canon, like with the Kelvin timeline. The “what if-ery” of whether things would be the same if one decision was changed – so we can see that the Kelvin timeline has a more heavily militarised Starfleet than the Prime timeline. Also, this kind of contrast is seen in Mirror Universe episodes; although those have their own kind of canon too.

Star Trek has done this glaringly badly in the Trek film which shall not be named – the approach to Khan and the events of Wrath of Khan in this new interpretation come across as feeling extremely empty. Partly I think because we don’t really see much of the crew together becoming friends – in the TV series we got hours and hours of watching them work and socialise together. The original cast films had the benefit of being made a whole ten years after the TV series aired and the visibly older crew made it easier for us to imagine that they had spent that ten years continuing their adventures together, though out of our sight. Additionally, Wrath of Khan, like all of the earlier Star Trek films, had a clear message/theme – getting older, dealing with the consequences of your actions and family. Unfortunately the Trek film which shall not be named doesn’t have any kind of theme really – it’s just an action film, trying to hit emotional beats that were hit before but sadly missing them.

To what extent did the business model of network television enable Star Trek: The Original Series to appeal to such a wide range of audiences? In ways did that same model constrain it?

In the 1960s, television networks wanted programmes that would engage families, and keep them watching that particular channel – with no reason to change to a different station – so that they would still be watching while the adverts that provided an income for the networks were on.  It was more that Star Trek had to appeal to a wide range of audience, rather than it was enabled to! We’ve seen how there was a second pilot made, because the first was too clever for audiences and wouldn’t have wide appeal if people didn’t understand it.

In a similar way, episodes couldn’t be too edgy – for fear of turning audience members off.