Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[Myrensis]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when it hit ST time frame ?

Alex Kurtzman really wants you to know that all that old Star Trek is boring shit you shouldn't pay any attention to (except random THINGS YOU REMEMBER occasionally thrown in to milk your nostalgia boner), his Star Trek is hip and edgy and the best Star Trek that ever was, so don't worry about it.

[Tarsonis]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when it hit ST time frame ?

Alex Kurtzman really wants you to know that all that old Star Trek is boring shit you shouldn't pay any attention to (except random THINGS YOU REMEMBER occasionally thrown in to milk your nostalgia boner), his Star Trek is hip and edgy and the best Star Trek that ever was, so don't worry about it.

Omg can we dispense with the myth that TOS was some great thing? The show was campy and fun for the time sure, but it was ducking awful. It had a few good episodes and the rest is just a cringe fest. It wasn't until the Movies that TOS had a decent level of quality.

[Myrensis]

Alex Kurtzman really wants you to know that all that old Star Trek is boring shit you shouldn't pay any attention to (except random THINGS YOU REMEMBER occasionally thrown in to milk your nostalgia boner), his Star Trek is hip and edgy and the best Star Trek that ever was, so don't worry about it.

Omg can we dispense with the myth that TOS was some great thing? The show was campy and fun for the time sure, but it was ducking awful. It had a few good episodes and the rest is just a cringe fest. It wasn't until the Movies that TOS had a decent level of quality.

Yet the entire argument for doing a prequel (for Kurtzmann and Abrams Trek) was that TOS is actually the most popular series with the characters and images that everyone recognizes.

And whether TOS was great or not isn't relevant to the question of STD being stated to be a prequel occurring in the same time line..and then completely shitting all over every aspect of TOS in terms of story, aesthetic, and technology, and just occasionally dragging out some random character or image that the general public recognizes as being 'from Star Trek' to milk the nostalgia.

[Ameriganastan]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when it hit ST time frame ?

Forget the tech going backwards, what about the uniforms? In like 9 years show time, they go from this...

to mini-skirts and gogo boots.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when hit ST time frame ?

You know, I've made up a headcanon that could theoretically, possibly, maybe make things easier to explain when it comes to that.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be a very noticeable shift in Federation technology just before the beginning of the Original Series. Every prequel set before TOS (both Prime and Kelvin) seem to point to a very similar lineage and evolution in Starfleet ships and tech.

Look at the NX-01 Enterprise bridge set here. Heavy use of screens with that sci-fi blue, very heavy use of metallic tones, isolated bridge lighting, and a noticeable lack of LCARS. So, we know this slick, metallic, futuristic aesthetic probably originated in the 22nd century. We can back this up by exploring the bridge of the Starship Franklin from Beyond, which matches that sort of bridge construction and console layout. More metallic tones, more of that same tech lineage.

So, from those two bridges, we can sort of glean a general idea of how Starfleet builds its early ships. Metallic greys and bronzes, abundance of screens on every wall, and that hallmark of futuristic sci-fi, lots of blue lighting and consoles.

That's how ships were constructed in the 22nd century, at least. So, what happens in the 23rd century?

Let's look at the evolution of the Kelvin Timeline, because there's less to go through.

Starting with that beautiful lady, the Starship Kelvin herself, it's easy to notice the continuation of the "metallic" bridge style we've seen in the 22nd century. Check out her bridge set here. Even though the set is in Red Alert and the screens are backlit red, you can still notice the calls and cues to the 22nd century, especially back to the Franklin. The set is very rugged, spartan, lots of railing and coils exposed. Still, you can notice the cues in the surrounding screens and consoles and how they relate back to the NX-01 Enterprise.

Now, the timeline split happened in 2233, when the Kelvin got creamed by Nero. From that point, the next bridge set we see is that of the Big E herself, the Starship Enterprise. Her bridge, while a dramatic leap from the Kelvin's more claustrophobic and spartan construction, still shows off some very similar computer consoles. You can see in the screens that they share some sort of common ancestor, the computer systems used in the 22nd century. Perhaps even something from the same "OS", as Ethan Peck's Spock calls it.

So, the Kelvin Timeline feels to me, and hear me out here, more like the logical progression starship computer tech should have taken. I suspect that the starship tech we're seeing in TOS was an abrupt and deliberate change from Starfleet's intended computer tech progression, and that the Enterprise we're seeing in Discovery is what the Enterprise should have been like during Shatner's Kirk era.

Now, compare the bridge sets of the Kelvin and the reboot Enterprise to the sets of the Starship Shenzhou and the Starship Discovery. Again, we have those sleek, shiny design cues in the framework of the bridge. One more similarity? The bridges of the Shenzhou, the Kelvin-Timeline Enterprise, and the Discovery are freaking massive and cavernous compared to those of the Kelvin, the NX-01 Enterprise, and the Franklin. Now, we all know that idea that, the more computers advance, the smaller they get. Remember those photographs of early computer being room-sized boxes of racks?

I suspect something similar is going on with Starfleet's bridges and starship tech. Remember, I mentioned that somewhere after the Kelvin, Starfleet had some sort of revolution in computational technology. Now, starship computers need to manage every system on the bridge independently, plus some more. That and insulation. So, It'd make sense for early starship bridges to be smaller, so they'd have room for all the nuts and bolts behind the walls.

The NX-01 and Franklin are obviously gonna have this trait, considering they are some of the fleet's earliest ship designs to be used in deep space, of course they're gonna pack every possible chip they can within the ship, including on the bridge. The Kelvin is a science ship. I'd assume it's size is to accommodate open laboratories and engineering rooms, but packing in computers may also account for that.

The Discovery and the Shenzhou continue being generally massive, but their difference is that their bridges are much more wide-open and cavernous. This leads me to assume that Starfleet made a computational system breakthrough, and they managed to pack the same (or possibly more) computational power in smaller and smaller spaces.

Now, remember Control and the AI threat? Remember the loss of basically every Crossfield-class, which were Starfleet's fastest and probably their most advanced starships, after Control went cuckoo? Now, this here's a stretch, but what if Starfleet actually took notice of this? What if they stepped back and considered that they were vulnerable as they were to another cyber-attack of this type?

What if Starfleet overreacted?

So, Starfleet does a complete overhaul of their shipline. Wary of the Klingons, the Romulans, and of basically any cyberthreat they could produce, they take in and mothball most of their fleet, with a few Discovery-era ships left behind to service the fleet (hence why they're seen later in 2399 in Picard). As for the Enterprise and the Constitution-class, all of their fancy new digital EPS computer whatevers are ripped out. The fleetyards make an executive decision to revert to mechanical-based computing. Physical printouts. Equipment that needs more direct and constant maintenance and supervision. That's why everything on board is so brightly colorful, in order for the engineering crew to have an easier time locating and performing maintenance on this new beast.

It's also why the Enterprise bridge is smaller in TOS than in Discovery. See that huge empty back space in the Discovery-era Enterprise, behind all the consoles? That was probably filled in to make room for all the bulky mechanisms of Starfleet's new mechanical-age.

I'll even present another theory: the Constitution-class is a direct descendant of the NX-refit class. I'm talking one after the other. Flowing into each other. No middle bar. For comparison, here's visuals of the two:

NX Refit

Original Series Connie

None of this is ever confirmed in canon (just my own speculation), and the NX Refit technically never appears in any canon material. It was a concept developed for after the cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise. Here's why I think this.

The starships in Discovery all have a very distinct variation on the usual Star Trek ship designs. They're very sharp. Thin. Very short hull profiles. Especially take note of how sleek and thin the nacelles are. Perhaps an ancestor to the TMP and TWoK era refit nacelle's

Look at this shot in the very first episode of Discovery. All of those are Starfleet ships. Despite the angle of the shot, it's very easy to see the similarities in their design. Again, very sharp. Very sleek. Very short hull profiles.

I'm inclined to say that the majority of Starfleet's ships in this era are of the same line, or "breed". Their unit components are nearly identical. In fact, regarding the Constitution class as portrayed in Discovery, she is very uniquely designed within the fleet.

Look at the Discovery version of the Connie. She's almost a one-for-one upscaled reconstruction of the NX Refit. Simply smooth out the NX's hull, and remove those struts, and it's a match. At the same time, she's a huge stand-out from the rest of the fleet. Rounded nacelles, windows covering most of the hull. Keep in mind, she still takes some design cues from the rest of the fleet (shorter neck stance, wider nacelle pylon stance), but she still seems to not match up with those other Discovery-era designs. Aside from the general ship unit component placements, of course.

I'd wager that the Constitution is the direct daughter of the NX-class, whilst the rest of Starfleet's serviceable fleet in Discovery was an different line of ships, designed entirely separately from each other. Perhaps the original Constitution was a heavily-modified NX-class herself, and then the design was refined and upscaled for the rest of the Constitution-class. Hey, we know that the Miranda-class has a bunch of different, small variants that count as their own independent classes (Soyuz, Saratoga anyone?)

I'd even wager that's why the Constitution's shining star, the Enterprise, and the NX-01 Enterprise share the same name. Perhaps this was where the Starfleet Enterprise obsession stemmed from.

But that's just my two cents. If I missed anything, point it out to me and I'll try and fill it in.

EDIT - ENTERPRISE HALLWAYS AND JEFFRIES TUBES

Take a look at the difference of the Enterprise Jeffries Tubes and standard hallways as portrayed between STD and TOS:

Discovery
- Enterprise hallway (compared to the design of the personnel hallways aboard the Discovery itself, almost entirely the same aside from that red accenting and mesh portals).
- Jeffries Tube (unspecified starship, notice the similarities of the grey piping and the isolate eye-lining, probably a carry-over from the bridge sets and the hallways)

TOS
- Enterprise hallway (Notice the colorful lighting and exposed piping.)
- Enterprise Jeffries Tube (technically those of the Defiant, but likely a similar design on Enterprise. Look at the multi-colored piping and very colorful equipment)

Notice that there's no way the Enterprise's interiors could have ever seen a natural evolution between STD and TOS. It could only have been a complete refit that could have led to this.

[Tarsonis]

Omg can we dispense with the myth that TOS was some great thing? The show was campy and fun for the time sure, but it was ducking awful. It had a few good episodes and the rest is just a cringe fest. It wasn't until the Movies that TOS had a decent level of quality.

Yet the entire argument for doing a prequel (for Kurtzmann and Abrams Trek) was that TOS is actually the most popular series with the characters and images that everyone recognizes.

That's probably true, TNG and the rest didn't have the broad stream appeal that TOS did, despite all the following properties being of far higher quality and lasting far longer in terms of series runs. TOS benefited from only having 5 channels to compete with.

And whether TOS was great or not isn't relevant to the question of STD being stated to be a prequel occurring in the same time line..and then completely shitting all over every aspect of TOS in terms of story, aesthetic, and technology, and just occasionally dragging out some random character or image that the general public recognizes as being 'from Star Trek' to milk the nostalgia.

True, but by contract law, they can't recreate the look of TOS, so their hands were tied in terms of Aesthetic and technological representation.

Also, they had to do some retconning of technology, as when the show started it didn't have a solid canon beyond Warp Speed, Phasers, and Photon torpedoes. That didn't come really until TNG, so they had to apply it backwards through time to STD

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

True, but by contract law, they can't recreate the look of TOS, so their hands were tied in terms of Aesthetic and technological representation.

Also, they had to do some retconning of technology, as when the show started it didn't have a solid canon beyond Warp Speed, Phasers, and Photon torpedoes. That didn't come really until TNG, so they had to apply it backwards through time to STD

Weren't photon torpedoes in TOS meant to be just solid pulses of photons and other particles (like a thick and robust pew-pew shot), and then for the TOS movies they changed it to instead be a solid projectile emitting an energy field around it and everything?

Phaser beams changed color every other episode or so? And warp speed was "time warp factor" in the TOS pilot?

Continuity in general sort of became a thing during the movies, and then it was expanded upon during the TNG renaissance.

[Tarsonis]

True, but by contract law, they can't recreate the look of TOS, so their hands were tied in terms of Aesthetic and technological representation.

Also, they had to do some retconning of technology, as when the show started it didn't have a solid canon beyond Warp Speed, Phasers, and Photon torpedoes. That didn't come really until TNG, so they had to apply it backwards through time to STD

Weren't photon torpedoes in TOS meant to be just solid pulses of photons and other particles (like a thick and robust pew-pew shot), and then for the TOS movies they changed it to instead be a solid projectile emitting an energy field around it and everything?

Phaser beams changed color every other episode or so? And warp speed was "time warp factor" in the TOS pilot?

Continuity in general sort of became a thing during the movies, and then it was expanded upon during the TNG renaissance.

Yeah, and STD retains all the continuity. But they couldnt recreate the look of TOS because Viacom and CBS both owned half the franchise and each had certain exclusive rights. Viacom solution was to create a new look with the Abrams style movies and CBS adopted a similar style when they made STD. They merged in 2019 but by then they had already started STD so it was too late. However it paved the way for incorporating traditional TOS elements like Pike's yellow command uniform.

[New haven america]

TNG/DS9/VOY: Holodecks and Holotransmitting technology are super new and advanced tech that people from the TOS Era couldn't even dream of, so advanced in fact that the Enterprise-D was the first place Holodecks were ever installed in.

STD taking place 10 years before TOS: Alright guys, let's get in touch with the Klingon High Council all the way in Qo'nos while we're on Earth with our holotransmitters and use our holodecks to show them how to use spore-based transwarp technology that can teleport you anywhere in the Universe you could think of. That's the power of math, people!

[Narland]

And people forget that Alex Kurtzman outright doesn't like or want anything to do with Trek pre-2009.

Kurtzman, when the franchise fell.

Lol. May I use this?

Alex Kurtzman really wants you to know that all that old Star Trek is boring shit you shouldn't pay any attention to (except random THINGS YOU REMEMBER occasionally thrown in to milk your nostalgia boner), his Star Trek is hip and edgy and the best Star Trek that ever was, so don't worry about it.

Omg can we dispense with the myth that TOS was some great thing? The show was campy and fun for the time sure, but it was ducking awful. It had a few good episodes and the rest is just a cringe fest. It wasn't until the Movies that TOS had a decent level of quality.

No, because it was and thereby is a great thing.

TOS was a visual space opera (carryover from radio broadcast story-telling -- itself descended from the art of Folk Storytelling derived from playwrights to pulp fiction from the early Modern Era to present (eg, Shakespeare to Bradbury)), pushing the envelope against the insipidity of 60s televised entertainment (needed to make sponsored commercials more entertaining and effective); the framework of which Roddenberry and company (viz., scriptwriters) were able to show an entertaining auditory late modern "Victorian" morality play on set, all of which itself, governed by Roddenberry' s specific form of Futurist Humanism amenable intellectuals of both atheistic and theistic persuasion alike. This in attempt at "plausible " moral dilemma and time limited plot complication and a late modern (late 20th Century) resolution from the three perspectives of hand, head, and heart (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy respectively) which could be openly discussed by audiences after watching with no moral ambiguity. Moral and morality in these cases are meant in the sense "to understand the consequences and the fitness of one's actions."

In short, using an unreal setting as a mirror to examine society's very real vices and virtues, the good, the bad, and the ugly and foster discussion, deliberation, and broader understanding of people and their opinions and attitudes in order to help create a better society through the art of storytelling (something feared would be lost by the WW1 generation) laudable. After watching, listening to, reading Roddenberry, and a couple of brief conversations, Roddenberry's dynamic vision for the human species was enthusiastic and contagious (and his pessimistic vision good cautionary tales, but these are not ST). Roddenberry makes sense, was a great storyteller, understood the art, (even if the skill and budget for the production crew, directors, and scriptwriters were lacking). These are not only the things that make TOS great, but these help make Star Trek what Star Trek is. So, no.

[Tarsonis]

Kurtzman, when the franchise fell.

Lol. May I use this?

Omg can we dispense with the myth that TOS was some great thing? The show was campy and fun for the time sure, but it was ducking awful. It had a few good episodes and the rest is just a cringe fest. It wasn't until the Movies that TOS had a decent level of quality.

No, because it was and thereby is a great thing.

TOS was a visual space opera (carryover from radio broadcast story-telling -- itself descended from the art of Folk Storytelling derived from playwrights to pulp fiction from the early Modern Era to present (eg, Shakespeare to Bradbury)), pushing the envelope against the insipidity of 60s televised entertainment (needed to make sponsored commercials more entertaining and effective); the framework of which Roddenberry and company (viz., scriptwriters) were able to show an entertaining auditory late modern "Victorian" morality play on set, all of which itself, governed by Roddenberry' s specific form of Futurist Humanism amenable intellectuals of both atheistic and theistic persuasion alike. This in attempt at "plausible " moral dilemma and time limited plot complication and a late modern (late 20th Century) resolution from the three perspectives of hand, head, and heart (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy respectively) which could be openly discussed by audiences after watching with no moral ambiguity. Moral and morality in these cases are meant in the sense "to understand the consequences and the fitness of one's actions."

In short, using an unreal setting as a mirror to examine society's very real vices and virtues, the good, the bad, and the ugly and foster discussion, deliberation, and broader understanding of people and their opinions and attitudes in order to help create a better society through the art of storytelling (something feared would be lost by the WW1 generation) laudable. After watching, listening to, reading Roddenberry, and a couple of brief conversations, Roddenberry's dynamic vision for the human species was enthusiastic and contagious (and his pessimistic vision good cautionary tales, but these are not ST). Roddenberry makes sense, was a great storyteller, understood the art, (even if the skill and budget for the production crew, directors, and scriptwriters were lacking). These are not only the things that make TOS great, but these help make Star Trek what Star Trek is. So, no.

It can be all that and still be a terrible show filled with terrible acting and cliches that were old even then. I respect what it did for Scifi and fully understand that we wouldn't have any of our modern scifi and arguably even the same culture we have today without it.

I still think it was a god awful show.


TNG was everything TOS was supposed to be.

[New haven america]

Lol. May I use this?


No, because it was and thereby is a great thing.

TOS was a visual space opera (carryover from radio broadcast story-telling -- itself descended from the art of Folk Storytelling derived from playwrights to pulp fiction from the early Modern Era to present (eg, Shakespeare to Bradbury)), pushing the envelope against the insipidity of 60s televised entertainment (needed to make sponsored commercials more entertaining and effective); the framework of which Roddenberry and company (viz., scriptwriters) were able to show an entertaining auditory late modern "Victorian" morality play on set, all of which itself, governed by Roddenberry' s specific form of Futurist Humanism amenable intellectuals of both atheistic and theistic persuasion alike. This in attempt at "plausible " moral dilemma and time limited plot complication and a late modern (late 20th Century) resolution from the three perspectives of hand, head, and heart (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy respectively) which could be openly discussed by audiences after watching with no moral ambiguity. Moral and morality in these cases are meant in the sense "to understand the consequences and the fitness of one's actions."

In short, using an unreal setting as a mirror to examine society's very real vices and virtues, the good, the bad, and the ugly and foster discussion, deliberation, and broader understanding of people and their opinions and attitudes in order to help create a better society through the art of storytelling (something feared would be lost by the WW1 generation) laudable. After watching, listening to, reading Roddenberry, and a couple of brief conversations, Roddenberry's dynamic vision for the human species was enthusiastic and contagious (and his pessimistic vision good cautionary tales, but these are not ST). Roddenberry makes sense, was a great storyteller, understood the art, (even if the skill and budget for the production crew, directors, and scriptwriters were lacking). These are not only the things that make TOS great, but these help make Star Trek what Star Trek is. So, no.

1. It can be all that and still be a terrible show filled with terrible acting and cliches that were old even then. I respect what it did for Scifi and fully understand that we wouldn't have any of our modern scifi and arguably even the same culture we have today without it.

I still think it was a god awful show.


2. TNG was everything TOS was supposed to be.

1. Or maybe you just don't have a taste for older sci-fi.
2. No, coming from thee main man himself, The Big G Roddenberry, TOS was Wagon train to the Stars while TNG was Diplomacy in Space! 2 totally different things.

[Nevertopia]

anyone hear about that sitcom about the lower decks in star trek?

[Tarsonis]

1. It can be all that and still be a terrible show filled with terrible acting and cliches that were old even then. I respect what it did for Scifi and fully understand that we wouldn't have any of our modern scifi and arguably even the same culture we have today without it.

I still think it was a god awful show.


2. TNG was everything TOS was supposed to be.

1. Or maybe you just don't have a taste for older sci-fi.

Possible. I like the movies though, just not the show.

2. No, coming from thee main man himself, The Big G Roddenberry, TOS was Wagon train to the Stars while TNG was Diplomacy in Space! 2 totally different things.

I was talking more quality, not subject matter.

[Narland]

Lol. May I use this?


No, because it was and thereby is a great thing.

TOS was a visual space opera (carryover from radio broadcast story-telling -- itself descended from the art of Folk Storytelling derived from playwrights to pulp fiction from the early Modern Era to present (eg, Shakespeare to Bradbury)), pushing the envelope against the insipidity of 60s televised entertainment (needed to make sponsored commercials more entertaining and effective); the framework of which Roddenberry and company (viz., scriptwriters) were able to show an entertaining auditory late modern "Victorian" morality play on set, all of which itself, governed by Roddenberry' s specific form of Futurist Humanism amenable intellectuals of both atheistic and theistic persuasion alike. This in attempt at "plausible " moral dilemma and time limited plot complication and a late modern (late 20th Century) resolution from the three perspectives of hand, head, and heart (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy respectively) which could be openly discussed by audiences after watching with no moral ambiguity. Moral and morality in these cases are meant in the sense "to understand the consequences and the fitness of one's actions."

In short, using an unreal setting as a mirror to examine society's very real vices and virtues, the good, the bad, and the ugly and foster discussion, deliberation, and broader understanding of people and their opinions and attitudes in order to help create a better society through the art of storytelling (something feared would be lost by the WW1 generation) laudable. After watching, listening to, reading Roddenberry, and a couple of brief conversations, Roddenberry's dynamic vision for the human species was enthusiastic and contagious (and his pessimistic vision good cautionary tales, but these are not ST). Roddenberry makes sense, was a great storyteller, understood the art, (even if the skill and budget for the production crew, directors, and scriptwriters were lacking). These are not only the things that make TOS great, but these help make Star Trek what Star Trek is. So, no.

It can be all that and still be a terrible show filled with terrible acting and cliches that were old even then. I respect what it did for Scifi and fully understand that we wouldn't have any of our modern scifi and arguably even the same culture we have today without it.

I still think it was a god awful show.


TNG was everything TOS was supposed to be.

I guess it is a matter of perspective, as TNG is just a polished form of all the the "horrible" stuff of TOS with less "to boldly go" and more "let's talk them to death." What made TNG lackluster imo is what seems to be a lesser sense of trying to make something greater than the budget constraints. It still has the stilted acting and awful cliches found in Hollywood just less so and less abrasive). OC Roddenberry wasn't at his best, but his input is clearly seen despite his successors apparent nonclarity as to the integrity and cohesive vision of Roddenberry's philosophy for Star Trek.

The current execs do not care enough about Roddenberry or his creation to continue in the same vein, and are willing to gut what made Star Trek, Star Trek. They neither have the moral acuity nor intellectual integrity to see Star Trek through as the thing in itself. They have shown themselves willing to divorce its concrete and profitable fanbase for the abstract political fiction of legislated intellectual property rights in hopes of securing future profitability; and are willing to destroy the viability of the franchise in order to do so.

The drive to convey edgy nihilism, unconscionable moral ambiguity, and platonically unfit inconsequential consequences as narrative in the current Star Trek setting makes the current Star Trek franchise effectively un-Star Trek (and more seemingly Anti-Star Trek) from Roddenberry's perspective. The execs are not smart enough to care to know the difference, or are banking that the current crop of new fans will be uncritical enough to only care about the narrative of narcissistic nihilists running the universe with better props and special effects through their production studios. It would have been better for them to create their own dramatic universe -- at least former fans like myself would have given the stories little more latitude without askance or looking askew like a rebadged FIAT masquerading as a Jeep.

[Auristania]

Abrams, his lens flaring.

[Tarsonis]

You know, after rewatching the Tuvix episode, king of Ironic that the Doctor is the only one with a spine, despite not possessing bones

[Tarsonis]

Interesting extrapolation I came across:

1. Rule of Aquisition 113: Always have Sex with the Boss.
2. Only male Ferangi go into business meaning the boss and workers are male.
3. They also establish nuclear families by purchasing women who are treated like property.

Conclusion: Ferangi are pansexual.


Can't find a fault in the logic.

[Ameriganastan]

Interesting extrapolation I came across:

1. Rule of Aquisition 113: Always have Sex with the Boss.
2. Only male Ferangi go into business meaning the boss and workers are male.
3. They also establish nuclear families by purchasing women who are treated like property.

Conclusion: Ferangi are pansexual.


Can't find a fault in the logic.

I do not recall that Rule Of Acquisition.

[Tarsonis]

Interesting extrapolation I came across:

1. Rule of Aquisition 113: Always have Sex with the Boss.
2. Only male Ferangi go into business meaning the boss and workers are male.
3. They also establish nuclear families by purchasing women who are treated like property.

Conclusion: Ferangi are pansexual.


Can't find a fault in the logic.

I do not recall that Rule Of Acquisition.

it's from the DS9 accompanying guide Behr wrote

[The Huskar Social Union]

anyone hear about that sitcom about the lower decks in star trek?

I watched the first two episodes. It’s alright, got a few laughs out of it

[Tarsonis]

anyone hear about that sitcom about the lower decks in star trek?

I watched the first two episodes. It’s alright, got a few laughs out of it

Ironically, the show that kind of takes the piss out of star trek, holds closer to the spirit of Star Trek more than the current properties that are actually supposed to.


It's like the Orville all over again.

[Ameriganastan]

I watched the first two episodes. It’s alright, got a few laughs out of it

Ironically, the show that kind of takes the piss out of star trek, holds closer to the spirit of Star Trek more than the current properties that are actually supposed to.


It's like the Orville all over again.

Except The Orville is funny and awesome. Not a weak-ass Rick And Morty clone using the Star Trek license.

[Tarsonis]

Ironically, the show that kind of takes the piss out of star trek, holds closer to the spirit of Star Trek more than the current properties that are actually supposed to.


It's like the Orville all over again.

Except The Orville is funny and awesome. Not a weak-ass Rick And Morty clone using the Star Trek license.

Eh the similarities are there but I don't really see it as a ripofff

[New haven america]

Except The Orville is funny and awesome. Not a weak-ass Rick And Morty clone using the Star Trek license.

Eh the similarities are there but I don't really see it as a ripofff

It's literally being made by one of the writers/showrunners of R&M.