/trek/-Blade Runner 2449 Edition

How often do you access your dead child's memories? Interlinked.

Justice for Lore when?

Reminds me of one of Voyager's better episodes.

ENT confirmed underrated

>When you're not performing your duties, do they keep you in a little box?
No, I have my own room, of standard size for a senior Starfleet officer serving aboard a Galaxy-class starship.

Everyone start binging ENT right fucking now!

Watching with a quasi-critical eye,I simply cannot take the concept of the Holodeck seriously anymore. At first I started making my Holodeck posts as a joke ("Why don't they call it X instead of a Holodeck? The name is misleading") but I'm starting to get annoyed whenever anyone uses the Holodeck. I just can't stop thinking about all the plot holes, the unbelievable decisions that people make, the fact that it's possible for the technology to work flawlessly while not responding to controls because of some major spatial anomaly, there's so much about the Holodeck that doesn't make even a little bit of sense. And then there's the fucking Doctor. They put a bunch of EMHs in a cave system to mine dilithium or something, but they can't set up holoprojectors around Voyager? Actually, we know that they CAN and DO do this--in that episode with the Hirogen, we see it done, it's the entire plot--and no amount of handwaving can make me believe that there is some reason that makes sense diegetically NOT to have done this before. And the mobile emitter almost never malfunctions; when it does, they can fix it, no problem. It's even more unbelievable than Geordi's ability to operate on Data's positronic brain without actually being a cybernetics genius like Singh was. Why the fuck can't they make more Datas? Why the fuck can't Data experience emotions but Moriarty can? If a Holodeck replicates matter on demand, why can't the replicate and android? Why does that replicated matter lose cohesion when it leaves the Holodeck if it's replicated, rather than projected? Who decided that the Holodeck was a good idea?

Daily reminder that Gul Dukat literally did nothing right

Commander Riker, tell me about your sexual organs

The holodeck in itself was a good idea, but it has the same issue as the transporter. They fit the workings of the technology to whatever the fuck they want for the script to work.

Transporter matter streams reflect beams when they want them to, or don't when they don't. You can move while still being transported when they want, can't when they don't. And so on, and so forth...

They always work like the episode demands from the technology to work.

>My quarters, 2300. I shall change into appropriate costume.

That's because it's television, not a video game.

>click

From the looks of it, Data's quarters are the biggest of any officer on the ship. They look to be the same size or even bigger than Picard's. I guess the captain also has his ready room at least, but Data basically has a private robotics lab that is only ever used to build Lal or do experiments on his head (or de-Borg Picard, but Data's head was open for that).

>brrrr

That robotics lab is absolutely not private. They put Hugh in there too.

I really really want to know about her. What is she? A gynoid? Some kind of cyborg?
Discovery is trying so hard to be cinematic that it won't even introduce its characters.

this episode was trash though

Redressed Kirk's quarters from Wrath of Kahn.

Shut up Belanna

She is a cyborg. Flesh and blood with cybernetic enhancements. At least that's what the script says.

its over kirk i have the high ground

I know it's not officially his, but he's pretty much always involved when anyone is using it, and he freely uses it for off-duty shenanigans like creating offspring.

Ok good, so at least they aren't trying to trample all over the supposed non-existence of sentient machines in the federation at that time.

He has free reign over that lab because it's the cybernetics research lab, and there is no cybernetic research being done on the Enterprise (that we know of), so if he wouldn't use it, it would just be mothballed. Like when there's a wheelchair toilet in the school, but only one student is a wheelchair user.

Video games don't make more sense, what are you talking about?

You're nitpicking inconsistencies across multiple writers, seasons, series and decades. A 100% logically consistent Transporter wouldn't make Star Trek any better or worse.

It would absolutely be a better show without holodecks at all, I think.

Worf's quarters are pretty big as well
only Rikers seem a bit small considering he's second officer

who's the best captain and why is it Pike

>doesn't like fun

>lmao just turn your brain off
kill yourself

I didn't say "turn your brain off." Should we discount the entirety of Season 4 DS9 because according to Season 1 TNG the Klingons were members of the Federation, not just a political alliance?

>Should we discount the entirety of Season 4 DS9 because according to Season 1 TNG the Klingons were members of the Federation, not just a political alliance?
That's different, that's political.

Phlox is great. He has a collection of herbs and pets to actually extract chemicals from, he doesn't just cure every ailment in the world with a hypospray and a tricorder. I almost forgot about it. I love it.

Please, they made a continuity error every 3 episodes. Like when Picard said his heart is a parthenogenetic implant, and then another episode we see him and Q having a conversation over a completely artificial heart.

Data uses contractions until the episode where they state that he can't.

>Technical details are more important than consistent worldbuilding

To be fair, he usually says he "cannot master" contractions, and most of the ones he uses are borderline when he has to talk fast (i.e. "I've for "I have")

Holodecks are literally artificial worldbuilding.
CHECKMATE

>The Holodeck isn't part of the worldbuilding and therefore it doesn't matter if every instance of its use was pulled out of the writers' asses when they ran out of budget and had to use pre-existing props from other things made by the studio

It's like you're upset that Star Trek is a tv show.

>Implying that's an excuse for bad writing
Gilligan's Island is more consistent than the Holodeck.

Fuck off.

Did I strike a nerve?

So go shitpost in the Gilligan's Island thread about how you can't recharge alkaline batteries. I'll create one for you if you'd like.

Yes you did. Contrarians exhibiting intentionally shitty taste always irk the shit out of me.

Spongebob is more consistent than Star Trek and not across series, across seasons of the same series. Once you realize that, you can start enjoying STD too.

>I'll create one for you if you'd like.
Please do, there isn't nearly enough Gilligan on this board.
>Implying the Holodeck makes sense
>Spongebob is more consistent than Star Trek
It's true

>Implying the Holodeck makes sense
It's their video game console and various episodes have creatively utilized it. The Big Goodbye's ending still haunts me.
Last (You). You're a lost cause and no one will ever actually admire you.

>The Big Goodbye's ending still haunts me.
That's one of the worst offenders, those gangsters should never have been able to exit the door. Same for Wesley's snowball. The Doctor clearly can't leave sick bay prior to getting his emanator.

Your point? The episode still carried existentially thematic weight.
The sooner you become aware that Star Trek is just a platform for expression science fiction ideas, the sooner you understand what the show actually is.
As long as a holodeck episode has something to say, and many do, then it's worth watching.
Never be too literal with fiction. It'll drive you to high-level autism, if you're not there already.

>The episode still carried existentially thematic weight.
It was inconsistent with the already established and later portrayals of the technology in question?
I feel like you're too stupid to understand my point

Good job.

lmao this is who I'm arguing with
nice work, you fucking idiot

Your point is that consistency=quality.
My point is that consistency isn't the series's aim, and it will usually sacrifice it for the sake of exploring a science fiction theme that a given writer has taken an interest in.
Refusing to accept this is to refuse to accept Star Trek on a fundamental level, and you're literally ruining the show for yourself because of your own view of what the show should be.
My advice is to find another show. This one isn't for you.

Have we had a German captain yet?
we will

That's not Jamie Foxx.

>Your point is that consistency=quality.
No, that's literally the opposite of my point: inconsistency is bad. Are you saying that consistency is bad? I'm saying that it's good. I'm also saying that inconsistency is bad. Inconsistency is bad because it shows that the writers don't care about what they've already done and are making it up as they go along. The story is inconsistent.

I like the holodeck. Why do people have to be so autistic about it?

Maybe you should reread what the guy wrote you are quoting

>No, that's literally the opposite of my point: inconsistency is bad. Are you saying that consistency is bad? I'm saying that it's good.

Holy fuck why am I speaking with you? You're clearly retarded.

>making it up as they go along
Literally every television show, feature film and stage production for the past 500 years has been written that way.

Because it detracts from what makes the show interesting, which is the internal logic of the world. There is no real internal logic to the Holodeck, which makes it all the more obvious that there is no internal consistency to any other technology.
So what if consistency isn't the series' aim? That doesn't matter. The show fundamentally fails to tell a consistent story. This was a problem in TOS, too, and there's no excuse for TOSfags today who say it doesn't matter because TV wasn't what it is today back then. Fuck off.
>You're clearly retarded.
Good one
And 99% of them suck

>Your point is that consistency=quality
>that's the opposite of my point! Consistency=quality!
The absolute state of this user.

Those statements aren't logically equivalent. Am I the only person with a brain who has watched TNG?

>So what if consistency isn't the series' aim? That doesn't matter.
Holy fucking shit I think I broke him, guys.
If consistency isn't the aim, then of course it's not gonna give a shit about telling a consistent story.

Yeah he is obviously retarded or is pretending to be

>the Klingon Imperial Empire

At this point he's having a nervous breakdown. I didn't expect he'd go down this fast.

>If consistency isn't the aim, then of course it's not gonna give a shit about telling a consistent story.
I don't care what the show cares about or is trying to do, I say it fundamentally fails to be good by being so inconsistent.

Which ones... do you like?

2001 and 2010 are the best science fiction films ever made.

Just stop you are embarrassing yourself

>I don't care what the show cares about or is trying to do,
Then why bother watching it at all?

You're the one arguing with me
Because it's better than most sci-fi television

>Spongebob is more consistent
>Has one episode where Spongebob and Patrick try to build a fire but they can't because they're underwater
>Has another episode with an entire musical number about a campfire without once acknowledging its impossibility underwater

>Because it's better than most sci-fi television
But many inferior sci fi shows successfully tell a consistent story. Are you going to tell me the Expanse is better than TNG?

>I know it's not officially his, but he's pretty much always involved when anyone is using it
What are you talking about?
That's just a set that they use for all sorts of things, you see it used for multiple different sciences, like the episode with Beverly and the Ferengi shields doctor or the one with Picard's astrometrics love bird.

>Because it's better than most sci-fi television
Then deal with the inconsistency and learn to enjoy it.

>Are you going to tell me the Expanse is better than TNG?
Yes, in this respect.
Why do you think I'm having this discussion with you?

Oh, you're the "Thinking's Man Sci-Fi" guy, aren't you?

I'm not the one arguing with you I'm laughing at you

lol so you agree with me? I thought we were arguing
Who?

>in this respect
And yet it's still a much worse show overall.
Again, Star Trek isn't the kind of show you're going to enjoy if you can't handle inconsistency.
It's a platform for science fiction writers to express their ideas. Don't take it as anything deeper than that. You've already driven yourself to madness.

No you're not. Stop this fucking shit now. It's not consistent and you know it. You're all just a bunch of bullies.

Why did they not throw the holodeck out the third time it tried to take over the ship?

Nobody's saying it's not inconsistent. Only that the inconsistency doesn't detract from the show. In fact I'd argue that it gives it more variety.

How do you throw out a holodeck? It's an empty room.

>And yet it's still a much worse show overall.
Why is that?
>Again, Star Trek isn't the kind of show you're going to enjoy if you can't handle inconsistency.
Well you may not believe me when I say I enjoy it, but I do. I just think the writers didn't know what they were doing a lot of the time. How can you disagree with that?
>It's a platform for science fiction writers to express their ideas. Don't take it as anything deeper than that
Greg Bear, Larry Niven, Iain M. Banks, Asimov, Clarke, the list goes on. All of them are better than Star Trek. Ironically the best episode of Star Trek was written by Larry Niven.
>inconsistency doesn't detract from the show
Nobody has explained why this is the case, I'm starting to think you're all retarded.

Because Picard fucking loves the holodeck. Remember when he called a meeting just to sperg out about how cool the 1940s were?

Take it apart and chuck the parts out the airlock.

I think their point is that they're less concerned with the internal consistency of the technology within the setting than the themes the story deals with. If telling the story means bending the rules for aesthetic purposes, it's acceptable to do so.

>Why is that?
Bad writing, forgettable characters, and subpar acting. Consistency does not a good series make.

That's not how good writing works. You people are morons.

>If telling the story means bending the rules for aesthetic purposes, it's acceptable to do so.
Not to the extent that the Holodeck does it.
Why not?

>Nobody has explained why this is the case, I'm starting to think you're all retarded.
Except for the people who have implied that not worrying about consistency gives writers the creative freedom to explore science fiction themes and ideas.
You know the story about the guy who thought everyone was an asshole? Turns out he was the asshole.

>Except for the people who have implied that not worrying about consistency gives writers the creative freedom to explore science fiction themes and ideas.
You meant the people making excuses for bad writing?
>You know the story about the guy who thought everyone was an asshole? Turns out he was the asshole.
Deep

>Why not?
Because it's far from the only component of a quality series. Even you've admitted that TNG is one of the best science fiction series, despite its own indifference to consistency.

>Because it's far from the only component of a quality series
But it's still bad, and it's still a part of the series. You people seem to think that there is no room for TNG to have flaws.
>Even you've admitted that TNG is one of the best science fiction series, despite its own indifference to consistency.
Yes, and that indifference is not good.

multiple people are talking to you shit for brains

Being a slave to minor technical details or not acquiesce to them when a thematic moment is more important or a budgetary concern won't allow such strict adherence will only bring a show down. Do you get angry at matte paintings because they're all lies?