Persistent, Niggling Questions

[Nate the Great]

I found myself pondering this question. I'll expand the parameters...


PNQ1: When/if you have children old enough to watch Trek, in what order will you introduce them to the franchise?
PNQ2: What Trek won't you show them, letting them discover it on their own if they want to?


A key issue is that the primitive (I hesitate to say "cheap") style of TOS will be a major turnoff for some. I refer you to earlier comments I've made about people not liking black and white movies JUST because they're black and white, it's the same thing.


In many ways STIV would be a good intro, it's lighter on the scifi and heavier on the humor and character work. Too bad it refers to STII and STIII events.


PNQ3: Would the bite-sized nature of TAS be a reasonable introduction, or does it rely too much on TOS lore and '70s weirdness?

[Flying Gremlin]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

PNQ1: When/if you have children old enough to watch Trek, in what order will you introduce them to the franchise?

I can answer this one really easily: I showed my daughter who she was named after first and let her make up her mind.

It probably was the wrong move, but she was curious and asked me.

(Her name's Annika, BTW.)

[Nate the Great]

I wouldn't try to introduce a child to ALL of TOS at once, but they should at least see Trouble With Tribbles, Balance of Terror, Journey to Babel, etc. towards the start.


Then TNG starting at Season Three.



I would never use TAS as an introduction to children. Yeah, it's only half an hour and it's a cartoon, but it's an OLD cartoon. Putting aside the continual references to TOS (which aren't a bad thing for older viewers who have seen TOS), it's cheaply animated and falls victim to the the old trap hole I've mentioned before: older filmmaking tech is offputting to those not used to it.

[Flying Gremlin]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

I would never use TAS as an introduction to children. Yeah, it's only half an hour and it's a cartoon, but it's an OLD cartoon. Putting aside the continual references to TOS (which aren't a bad thing for older viewers who have seen TOS), it's cheaply animated and falls victim to the the old trap hole I've mentioned before: older filmmaking tech is offputting to those not used to it.

I can agree with this.

Hopefully Prodigy is a good jumping off point for younger audiences. I hope it will be good to go when my son is old enough to start understanding that stuff.

[Nate the Great]

So STIII made the mistake of calling the Enterprise "twenty years old" when it's really forty. Whatever, the point is that Admiral Morrow called it too old to bother repairing.



PNQ1: Why did Starfleet send years to do a complete overhaul on the ship if it's going to be called out of date and useless in ten years or so?
PNQ2: Don't we see oodles of OLD Excelsior classes in TNG? Like, a LOT of them. I can't buy that the majority of them were built in the 24th century, the Ambassador-class should've overtaken them if so.

PNQ3: Building starships takes years, even in the 24th century (you have to assume that "Best of Both Worlds" made the shipyards start production full-time and never stopped due to the increased threats). If Scotty can get the ship back to spec in a few weeks, why not let him? It's gotta be cheaper to fix a ship than build a new one.

PNQ4: What's the most damage we've seen a starship suffer and still be able to be repaired to full capability? The E-D was pretty battered after Best of Both Worlds, Voyager after the Borg/8472 War, etc. Did Khan really do that much damage all things considered?

PNQ5: If you really think about it, the worst of Khan's attack would be those initial phaser hits when the Enterprise didn't have its shields up. Of course ablative armor didn't exist yet, but the damage seemed to be concentrated on the warp distribution system in order to cripple the Enterprise. Plasma conduits can be replaced, hull segments can be replaced. And Scotty was ready to do it.

[Nate the Great]

So in "The Ultimate Computer" M-5 didn't recommend McCoy for the landing party because any injured crewman could be beamed up.


PNQ: How often has a doctor been essential on a landing party because contact is lost with the ship?


The answer is: A LOT! While I could certainly argue that you don't need the CMO on every away mission, someone trained in medicine should whenever they're going into an unknown environment. And in the episode this is the first time anyone from Starfleet will be visiting this planet, who knows how many exploding rocks or salt vampires or dikronium clouds or mugatos or whatever else could be down there? Unless they really do treat the redshirts like mineshaft canaries on purpose, a doctor will always be necessary.

[Nate the Great]

I found myself wondering the following...


PNQ: Which Star Trek captain actor was most well-known before joining Trek?


To the general TV-watching audience, I mean. I don't want to get into the intricacies of who might've seen Shatner or Stewart on stage.



It seems that it would be Bakula, but am I missing something?



As for which actor I knew best before they appeared on Trek it would be Bakula of course (my parents were HUGE Quantum Leap fans). However, I did see Chris Pine in Princess Diaries 2.



As for ALL Trek actors, in terms of sheer popularity across the spectrum, could it be LeVar Burton? Between Roots and Reading Rainbow I think he had his place in pop culture solidified.



Mention must also be made of the 1988 movie Roots: The Gift. It features LeVar Burton, Kate Mulgrew, Avery Brooks, AND Tim Russ.