scenario

Senior Member
  • Content count

    1,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scenario

  • Rank
    Intrepid-Class Starship

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New England U.S.A.
  • Marital Status
    Married
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    The Search for Spock
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Jean-Luc Picard
  • Favorite Trek Series
    The Original Series

Recent Profile Visitors

2,699 profile views
  1. I didn't agree with much of the stuff on this article. Science Fiction doesn't make it on network TV. Super Hero's are a sub group of science fiction which does well on TV because its an action show. Traditional SF may have action in it but that's not its focus. Find a Star Trek (any series) episode without any fighting. Pretty easy. Find an episode of the Arrow or the Flash or any of the other superhero shows that doesn't have a single fight scene. Much more difficult. Star Trek is a space based science fiction show whose core is ideas and social commentary with some action thrown in. Try to find a single space based traditional sf show on network TV except Star Trek that lasted more than one or two seasons. If Discovery was on network TV the people running the network would be screaming to add more action by the third episode. They would get rid of all of the social commentary that might upset people and make it a pure action show which would destroy what makes ST great. Would the networks feel comfortable with an episode that made terrorist look good for example? Social commentary is okay for Netflix or HBO but anything other than superficial commentary is frowned upon on the networks. CBSAA allows the networks to go a little beyond the restrictions of network programming. I watch all of super hero shows but I find that I fast forward past all of the boring fight scenes to get to the much more interesting talking scenes. Discovery would be dead on CBS within 2 years at most. On CBS all access, it has a chance to last much longer. And why should CBS give away what is potentially its most valuable product?
  2. Do all species in the Federation have the same moral values? One of my favorite book series has an alien species that solves their problems by assassination. If two groups have an ongoing dispute, they have the option of filing intent with the assassins guild. The guild then negotiates between the two parties to get an agreement. If the guild determines that one side is not negotiating in good faith and they determine that that party is not good for the stability of society, they rule in favor of the other party. Then they send out assassinations to kill the leaders of the party. The other party is required to hire assassinations to protect themselves. Really extreme views in that society never take over. The point is that assassinations is something that is against humans values. But if another species has assassination as a basic part of their legal system, is it immoral for them? What if section 31 uses a lot of tactics that are immoral by human terms but perfectly moral by other species rules? So an Earth company has a dispute with a company from another species that uses assassinations to solve problems. Section 31 supplies the assassins. Section 31 plays the game by other peoples rules when it seems appropriate.
  3. It depends on what you mean by a utopia. I don't believe that people really change, but cultures can change. I have a ST earth's history in my head. Earth continues on the path we are on where the extremes take control. People start fearing outsiders more and more. There is no real WWIII but when the big countries like the U.S. effectively break up into hundreds of smaller countries, there are thousands of smaller wars. The world divides into two basic types of government. The center vs the extremes. People who don't fit their groups, change, are driven out, or just leave. Mass migrations and sorting out. Most of the small countries follow various extreme policies based on the extremes we see today. They are against anything that contradicts their beliefs so they eliminate most education. Their infrastructure breaks down because no one knows how to repair it. They of course blame outsiders and start wars. Billions die. The middle of the road area's start to band together to help each other because if they don't they will be overwhelmed by the extreme countries. They educate all of their people and poverty as we know it starts to disappear within the middle of the road countries. The Vulcans land in one of the middle of the road countries. The humans learn from the Vulcans to make their decisions based on logic, not emotion. The extremes kill each other off or die because of their poor decision making. The middle of the road people vow, never again. Now getting to section 31. Earth looks back to the time of trouble in horror. They would never use something like Section 31 on Earth because it is not needed. While there are still liberals and conservatives and religion and all of the other things we have now, people with really extreme views that are based on emotion rather than logic don't exist on Earth. They do however still exist on some of the colonies, some of which were founded by extremists who left Earth because they didn't fit in anymore. Section 31 is viewed by people who think about it as a necessary evil when dealing with the extremes of the galaxy. Earth learned from bitter experience that you cannot reason with extreme people. If years of discussions get no where and the enemy is extreme and violent, it is better to use section 31 then to start a war. Section 31 is looked at as an alternate, less destructive type of warfare. It's the price you have to pay to keep your utopia.
  4. Mudd was a villain. He was the the type of bad guy who tries to sweet talk his way out of a bad situation. I haven't watched the story in years but as I recall no one on the Enterprise liked Mudd right from the start. They pegged him as a sleazy guy right away. From a legal standpoint, other than the drugs, what was he doing that was illegal? He asked the miners what they would pay a lot of money for. They said wives. Reading between the lines, he went to a very poor world that treated its women even worse than he did. He offered transportation at a very high price to a world with rich men who wanted to get married. He totally took advantage of them but from their standpoint he was giving them an opportunity to better themselves. I just find the situation interesting. Reading between the lines, you have women on a world where they are treated as property. They have no way to better themselves. The rules are set up to make it impossible for them to leave. Mudd comes in and gives them a chance to get a rich husband. He is totally taking advantage of them but they have no real options. They're grasping at straws. They know that if they don't get married, they'll be right back on their home planet in even worse shape than before. He is total scum but they live in a world full of people even worse than he is. He's the only one that's given them any sort of hope.The girls signed a contract. Pay me xyz by such and such a date or I'll take you back to your home world where you'll either wind up dead or in prison. They know their only hope is to get someone to marry them. But their alternative was to stay and probably die young. At least they have hope this way. Does this make Mudd good? No, he's a total opportunist. But he's the lesser of two evils. I look at him more like someone who smuggles undocumented aliens across the border for a fee. The illegal part was more than likely getting them off the world they were on. To me, what was sexist was more how he did it than what he did. If he didn't use the drugs, treated the women as paying clients and just transported them to the world for a fee, it wouldn't be anywhere near as sexist. He would be more like a matchmaker than a pimp. He turned something that could have been a simple business transaction that was borderline illegal into something that was totally sexist and evil. I wonder what the writers were trying to say. Was Mudd someone that you were supposed to dislike or like? The crew seemed to dislike him right away. He seemed more like worm tongue from the Lord of the Rings than a lovable rogue like Maverick (early 60's tv series) to me. Don't try to make Mudd humorous. Make him a person who lives on the edge of the law. Sometimes on one side and some times on the other side. He's totally sexist and a jerk who thinks he's so smooth but he's not someone who would do something totally evil like kill people. Mudd as humorous and charming just won't work. Mudd as a fast talking opportunist that the crew doesn't like but can sometimes use, might work. Mudd play's all sides. They want to arrest him but they can never catch him. And his crimes aren't all that serious but he tends to know what is going on. "We need information." "But where can we get it?" "You're not going to like the answer, Mudd."
  5. Martha did say that she was in love with the Doctor but knew it would never work. Donna certainly looked at the Doctor as a only a friend. Amy always gave off vibes that she loved both the Doctor and Rory. Rory was always afraid he'd lose her to the Doctor up until they finally married. When the Doctor got back at Amy and Rory's wedding, Amy ran up to the Doctor and grabbed him and said "You may definitely kiss the bride," which the Doctor stopped immediately. The first episode with the 12 Clara was upset that the Doctor wasn't young and cute anymore, indicating to me that there was a sexual attraction even if Clara had no intention of acting on it. Except with Donna, there's always been a subtext of the companions loving the Doctor. It's been fading for years and It has pretty much disappeared in the last two years. I'm glad it is now obvious it won't come back. I think Doctor Who works better with the Doctor and companions as friends rather than as potential lovers. Let River be the lover if you need it for a plot point.
  6. A guy whose so clueless he thinks he's a lovable rogue when he is really a misogynist jerk could be used as a stand in for any number of people in society today. In his own mind, he'd be the bestest person in the Galaxy. He could be rich and powerful on his daddy's money at this point. By the time TOS starts he's near broke and conning people to survive and still a misogynist jerk who learned nothing. If his fall only takes an episode or two and its a secondary story, it could be done reasonably well.
  7. I like it also because it helps put the final nail in the coffin of the companion falling in love with the Doctor story lines that showed up repeatedly with 9,10,11 and early 12. I liked it with 9 and 10 because he was messed up and needy because of the war but it got tiring after 10 left.
  8. They don't have to make him a lame comic relief character like the original was. Make him a little more evil who looks good at first and he might be okay.
  9. I think it was an unconventional war. Thousands of terrorists cells all coordinated. Historians are still arguing. Does the terrorist attack in xyz country count? Was it part of the war or was it an independent action? Does the famine in abc country count as war deaths? Different historians count it different ways. Some historians count every plague, famine and terrorist death as a war death. Some do not. So the figures for how many died depend on what historian you are quoting.
  10. Maybe it was a war like the war on Isis but more widespread. There could have been a bunch of groups like Isis that were all under Khans control without anyone knowing it. Each one killed hundreds of thousands of people. They also let out plagues that killed millions but it wasn't proven until years later. The war went on for decades. Khan was a genus who was an important part of the movement at 6 years old and its leader in his teens. He slowly replaced the leaders of countries like Russia one by one with puppets he controlled. He kept them fighting against his own people to keep up the facade but they never seemed to be able to kill anyone important. No one realized until near the end of his rule that there was only one person who controlled both thousands of small terrorist groups and many many governments. It wasn't considered a world war because there weren't two big armies fighting each other like WWII. It was more like thousands of small armies and a war of disinformation.
  11. How about we leave Pluto as it is but we finally discover that large planet that subtle orbit changes strongly suggest exists far out in the solar system. Then there will once again be 9 planets. Just a different 9. Leaving Pluto as a planet because it always has been one is like believing whales are fish because they always have been viewed that way.
  12. To be a planet, the object must be roughly spherical because of its own gravity. Ceres is the only object in the asteroid belt large enough to be spherical because of its own gravity. Objects that just happen to be spherical don't count. Currently, there are 8 planets and 5 dwarf planets. I'm sure there are many more dwarf planets and maybe another major planet out there but I doubt there would be thousands of objects that large in the Solar System. Hundreds, maybe. The moon does not orbit around the Earth. Both orbit around a common point. But because the Earth is much more massive the common point is inside the Earth but not at the Earths center. Perhaps they should be considered dual planets if the common point is not within one of the objects.
  13. I think that anything that is roughly spherical and orbits the sun is a planet. But there are two types of planets, major and minor. There are 8 major planets, if you include Mercury. Pluto, Sedna, Ceres etc. are all minor planets. The moon is 1/4 as big as the Earth. I wonder how big a moon has to get for the system to be considered a dual planets?
  14. Would the miners admit that they were having problems? The most likely response would be to force them down there anyway and just bring in new slaves. If the miners were forced to solve their own problems and weren't allowed to call for help and didn't have the resources to kill the Horta, maybe they would have found a way to talk. Of course, a bunch more people would have died first.
  15. If the humans start acting like 21st century humans they could easily destroy the Federation from within.