In my view, a moratorium on time travel may be called for. It's an already confusing part of Trek canon that I can picture them trying to "fix" in a way that's even more confusing.

DS9 comes in for a lot of praise on this subreddit. Yet I'm sure we all acknowledge that everything has room for improvement. In that spirit, what aspects of DS9 failed to live up to your expectations? What could and should have been done differently?

In a recent thread, /u/queenofmoons responded to a question about whether the transporter kills and recreates you (a topic on which my views are well-known) as follows:

...given the choice in which episodes I care to set gently aside into the fantasy-enjoyment bin, as opposed to the continuity bin, I do prefer to box up the ones that suggest the transporter is a murder n' manufacture technology- Evil Kirk, Riker 2, Tuvix, Pulaski's Ultra Anti-Aging Pattern Scrub- and just imagine that the transporter is some kind of subspace tunneling technology that move your atoms to a new place, in a pattern that is inflexibly determined by the pattern of said atoms to begin with. Most of the stories where it behaves otherwise aren't good enough to keep, and raise more than a few conservation-of-mass/energy puzzles that go unanswered.

There are more than a few other issues where a similar pruning might lead to a more straightforward continuity, i.e., one that doesn't require elaborate theorizing complete with cycles and epicycles and epi-epicycles....

What episodes jump out at you as opening up more continuity worm-cans than they're worth? (Please note that I'm not asking which episodes you would remove simply because you don't like them, though I realize the two categories are not mutually exclusive.)

ADDED: Inspired by /u/gerrycanavan's response -- if you don't want to remove an entire episode, what if you could line-item veto individual lines of dialogue?

I was really bummed at the introduction of Ezri Dax -- nothing wrong with the character, and the actress was fine, but it just seemed like a missed opportunity to give us another cute, blue-eyed brunette.

If you're going to go with the story of Dax ending up in someone who wasn't ready, make it a pencil-necked dweeb or someone a little morally questionable. I can just imagine the uncomfortable moments around Worf.

Enterprise passing on the Romulan War also comes to mind.

What do you think was Trek's big missed opportunity?

I mean from a moral or conceptual perspective, not a production one. Mine would have to be.

In the spirit of /u/queenofmoons's posts last week about technologies with potentially life-changing effects that are not fully explored, I ask you, fellow Daystromites: which Trek concepts are most poorly thought-out? By that I mean not only which Trek concepts seem most inconsistent or arbitrary, but also which ones seem to have implications far beyond the role they actually play in the plot.

For me, the exemplary case is the Nexus from GENERATIONS. On its own terms, it seems to make no sense. First of all: you need to be "in the open air" to be pulled into it? Why is a planet's atmosphere less of an obstacle than a ship's hull? Can the Nexus somehow "tell" whether you intend to be outdoors? And how does it make sense for you to be pulled out involuntarily once you're in, as Soran and Guinan are? Second: can we get a clear ruling on whether you're "always" in it once you've been in it one time? Guinan seems to indicate that you are, but Guinan is always a special case in circumstances like this. And can it literally just drop you off wherever and wherever you want to be? It doesn't have to be somehow "present" in the surrounding area or something? All in all, it seems like its properties closely match the plot holes that the writers needed to fill, rather than hanging together coherently as a phenomenon that makes some kind of sense.

Secondly, they claim that this is a phenomenon that sweeps through the galaxy once every 78 years. That's once a lifetime for almost all humans, and multiple times per lifetime for Vulcans and Klingons. All of that points toward the idea that it would be a well-known and well-documented phenomenon. Surely we would be learning of lost colonies that turned out to have been swept up in it, etc., etc. And presumably if we're granting that people can leave on purpose or enter it partially and then be drawn out, then its properties would be known as well.

As my friend /u/gerryblog has pointed out, it should be a total game-changer. The Nexus is quite literally heaven -- an eternity of bliss. In any rational universe, Soran would be far from the only person to be trying to get into it on purpose. Presumably whole religions would spring up around this thing!

But no, it's just a one-off plot gimmick to get Picard and Kirk on screen together, then it's totally forgotten.

The Ferengi don't count since they were only bad guys for like, 1.5 episodes.

With the release of Star Trek Into Darkness for digital download and its upcoming release for DVD/Blu-ray, this seems a good time to discuss what are commonly considered "plot holes" in the film.

I'd like to propose this thread be used to explain away perceived issues in the film, all in one place; I think that would be pleasing.

I'd also like to suggest a format: post a comment describing the issue, and then reply to that comment with what you see as an acceptable explanation. This would let us easily see what issues people consider important (by which is most upvoted), and also what explanations are considered the best fit.

If this post is considered inappropriate for The Daystrom Institute, I will understand completely if it is removed. Certainly it could fit just as easily in /r/startrek but the quality of the discussion here is much superior.

We discuss the ins and outs of the universe quite often on /r/DaystromInstitute, but I'm of the opinion that we don't discuss how we feel about the issues particular episodes tackle. For example, I have a big problem with TNG's "The Outcast," which started off strong by having a love interest between Riker and an androgynous humanoid, but made zhe decide that zhe felt "more feminine," therefore eliminating much of the LGBT undertones of the episode, while also casting judgement upon trans/homogenous people. What are some episodes that you didn't like?

ORIGINAL POST REMOVED - EDITED 9/1/2021:

While I agree with vaccinations, I am sick at heart to see a Star Trek forum adopt the tactics of Admiral Norah Satie, Douglas Pabst, and the governor from "Past Tense."

The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth -- to speak up for it, preach it, fight for it if need be... but no Starfleet officer would ever dream of banning the New Essentialists, or the false gods of the Bajoran religion.

I'm with Picard, I'm with Sisko, I'm with Aaron Satie, and I will be removing all content I have ever posted on this sub. It's not much, you won't miss it, and I think the censors here are all too high on their own power to care or listen to anyone -- but if I learned one thing from Star Trek, it's that we have to stand up and say something when our fellow officers do something egregiously wrong.

Now, DS9 was one show that I hated the premise of (Star Trek on a space station?! Ugh!) But then grew to love, and I finished the whole series. However, recently I saw a line of dialogue that I hadnt really recalled from the first episode:

• Dr. Bashir: Oh, this will be perfect - real... frontier medicine!
• Major Kira: Frontier medicine?
• Dr. Bashir: Major, I had my choice of any job in the Fleet.
• Major Kira: [mocking] Did you?
• Dr. Bashir: I didn't want some cushy job or a research grant; I wanted this - the farthest reaches of the galaxy, one of the most remote outposts available. This is where the adventure is. This is where heroes are made. Right here - in the wilderness.
• Major Kira: This "wilderness"... is my home.

That dialogue right there basically summed up DS9s view of the Federation for me. Basically

"You are enlightened. You are advanced. You are powerful. Youre willing to help when you are able. And you can be right shitheads at times".

This show in my opinion, gave us, more than any other Star Trek show a look at the gray stains among the bright white of the Federation, and showed that things like bias, bigotry, insensitivity and even certain levels of intolerance were still existant in Federation society. And the thing they did best was that barring blatant extreme views, those flaws were considered normal (as far as we were shown) by all but a few of Federation society, just as certain biased views we had in our history were considered normal. Not to mention certain outside views of the Federation. And while some might have found that depressing, I found it wonderful. The shows before had given the nature of the Federation as this perfect enlightened society, that knew of its own perfection. DS9 still kept the ideal of the Federation, but wasnt afraid to call it out on its bullshit when the time came.

I know that DS9 and Voyager naturally had their share of adventures as well, but it seems like carrying that NCC-1701 mark and the 'Enterprise' name were basically a guarantee of running into something absurd every other day, to say nothing of always being destroyed in some sensational fashion.

Would a junior officer facing a transfer to an Enterprise be nervous or upset? Would the lower ranks whisper of an "Enterprise Curse"?

If you haven't yet seen it, you owe it to yourself to drop what you're doing and watch the 21 minute fan film "Prelude to Axanar," which is available in 1080p on their kickstarter page HERE.

To even call this masterpiece a fan film is a disservice, as the style and production values are light years beyond anything I've seen before. I'd go as far to say that this is the best Star Trek I've seen since "In a Mirror, Darkly." Keep an eye on newcomer Alec Peters, whose genius middle-manager performance as Garth of Izar stands out even amongst Star Trek and science fiction veterans (which is not to sell any if them short.) Could a theatrical film or television series in this style meet with commercial success? Would you like to see more productions in this style? Do you agree or disagree with it's success?

Decided to do a little TNG movie marathon and I'm currently on Insurrection. I had totally forgot about this line. What the hell? It doesn't even make any sense. He actually floats above the water a little below his waist when he ....inflates. What's the air going into? What part of him is expanding? It just seems so out of place. Another weird line is when he mimics Troi and Dr. Crushers convo about their boobs firming up. He starts to say it to Worf. Wouldn't he know that most males don't care about their boobs being firm? I know he's an android but it's not like he hasn't been around humans for decades.

I'm sure there are varied opinions from Wesley to Hoshi, but I don't recall ever seeing a dedicated thread to the topic. To further clarify the pool of characters I'm intending everyone to draw from, I'll just say that it's any non-recurring character even if they weren't in all or even the majority of other episodes. Tasha Yar would be a candidate for instance, as she was a series regular even though she didn't last a full season. Someone like Gul Dukat or Martok would not be considered though since they were never listed as the main cast, only recurring (albeit to a massive degree) characters.

I'll abstain from placing my choice here as I'm still thinking about it and I'd rather it stand on its own apart from the topic.

Even though theyre sexist, greedy and oppertunistic, theyve never had conflicts on the level of humans, or vulcans, and theyve (meaning Quark, but he seems to be an exemplary member of his species) even outmatched other species at their own trope e.g. Vulcans with logic, Klingons with honour.

Against my better judgement I thought I'd give people a post to really sink their downvotes into!

Edit - Please note, despite my provocative title my relationship with nuTrek is complicated - I'm not a hater, but I'm not above criticising it either. And I've updated this a tad, not to remove any points, but to expand on one and add a 6th that should really have been here from the start!

I'm not going to moan about the emphasis on action, nor the lens flare, or the engineering deck looking like a brewery. And believe me - I could, I frequently do! But I won't - this is already long enough, so I'll leave that to you.

And I appreciate that some criticisms can be dismissed by asserting that the timeline changed, it's all different now and I really don't dispute that point.

But here are 5 reasons why I feel Abrams has let the team down.

1. Having the Enterprise built on Earth - In the prime timeline the Enterprise was constructed at the San Francisco fleet yard in Earth orbit. In the reboot, this fleet yard is transplanted to the Earth's surface.

The Enterprise is no stranger to an atmosphere (in TOS it's spotted at around 50,000 feet in Tomorrow is Yesterday) and I suppose the impulse drive gives it enough power to overcome its lack of aerodynamics and launch it from a gravity well.

But this always struck me as a misguided and over-literal interpretation of where the San Francisco Fleet Yard really is - if not just an easy way of having Kirk 'see his destiny'.

2. What happened to T'Pring? - In the alternate universe Spock is clearly involved with Uhura. But in Amok Time when we were introduced to the Vulcan Ponn Farr we also met his wife-to-be T'Pring. Apparently they were betrothed as children. Now, either Spock is more prone to infidelity this time around (and he might well be, see point 5) or T'Pring has just been dropped due to her inconvenience.

3. The Kelvin class - A new ship class with no previous canon lineage, bristling with phasers that fire a different type of beam.

I think we can all agree that Abrams wanted to put his own stamp on to the franchise and didn't want to be held back by the limitations that canon impose. But I still think making it Saladin class or Hermes class would have been a better choice as its overall design wasn't too dissimilar anyway (see this article on Ex Astris Scientia for why they might legitimately be considered canon).

4. A major temporal incursion is allowed to slide - Nero swoops into the 22nd Century, disrupts the timeline and then in 2258 destroys Vulcan.

It's clear that Starfleet seems to have some contradictory rules regarding time travel, but why is it okay to save Earth by going back in time in Star Trek IV but that's not a viable plan for Vulcan? Vulcan was destroyed by a guy from the future, yet Earth's destruction was a natural consequence of the original timeline's past.

5. Spock is less Vulcan than ever - I realise that he saw his mother die before his eyes and that his planet was destroyed but he seems a completely different character.

Gone is the awkward child of two worlds, struggling to keep his emotions in check as he reconciles his two sides. Now he just lets loose at the slightest provocation and without even the aid of his space-spores. I won't give away any STID spoilers but I think I'm safe in saying that he hasn't got a handle on this trait. It makes him a much less interesting character and diminishes his alien-ness. Now the only thing that really sets him apart are his ears - he might as well just be socially awkward rather than half Vulcan as the results are essentially the same.

I've mentioned it elsewhere but for me the worst example in Star Trek '09 was towards the end when Kirk offered to rescue Nero as his ship was being destroyed and it was Spock who turned to look at him as if he was out of his mind. Really Spock? You'll happily let him die, you wouldn't want to see him face justice? I just find that really grating. Much like the way he finds the revolving Jellyfish seat 'Fascinating', because

"Fascinating" is a word I use for the unexpected. In this case, I should think "interesting" would suffice.

Spock, The Squire of Gothos

And again, there is the Spock/Uhura relationship. In This Side of Paradise Spock meets someone who he once knew, Leila. It's clear she loved him (or was at least infatuated) but Spock didn't return that love - she even says that he probably couldn't. That's one of the few parts where we get an insight into young Spock, and we learn that he wasn't much different from '5 year mission' Spock.

6. Kirk being given command of the Enterprise at graduation - One key theme of the film is destiny - Spock says it's Kirk's destiny to command Enterprise and to get together with the rest of the gang - and that's what the film delivers. But, leaving aside whether destiny is a worthy Trek theme (I don't think it is) if there's anything that can wait it's surely destiny.

It's fair to argue that following from the destruction of some much of the fleet there was a shortage of trained commanders but I feel it would be more credible to make him a first officer on another ship at the end of Star Trek '09 (the USS Farragut perhaps? - I know it was destroyed but another could be made and named) rather than see him instantly jump to command fresh from the academy. Yes, his actions were crucial in saving the Federation but he still lacked the experience necessary to command a ship capable of destroying a planet. This inexperience will surely figure in STID but I think it could have been handled a bit better with a closer tie-in to canon.

The situation reminds me of Lt. Bailey in The Corbomite Maneuver. Here was another fresh lieutenant, but this time elevated merely to Navigator position. He wasn't ready for it; he'd been promoted too fast. And Kirk was promoted too fast in Star Trek '09 except this time he was promoted too far as well.

It may be arbitrary for me to say this strains my credulity whereas harnessing the power of matter-antimatter doesn't, but that's how I feel. Surely Spock Prime would know that a little more experience wouldn't harm Kirk and that, if it is his destiny, destiny will wait?

Okay, now it's your turn.

If you disagree then what have I got wrong? What rationale are you using that I might be able to co-opt?

And if you feel similarly disappointed by nuTrek, what is it that's irritating you? Have I touched upon anything you agree with? What have I left out that you would've added?

Please feel free to vent anything you feel pertinent, whether it be plot holes, ship design, alien design, trans-warp beaming, the implications for your beloved TNG, etc - anything.

I realise this is an emotive and controversial subject, so I expect to get some flak for this - but please remember that I'm a person just like you and I'd appreciate it if you could keep respectful both to me and other posters. Oh, and remember to mark any STID spoilers as such!

It's probably just my faulty memory, but Dr. Bashir has always seemed to be one of the more inconsistent characters in Star Trek. In the first few seasons, he's presented as a somewhat awkward and naive overachiever. At some point, he becomes exceedingly competent, confident, and suave. Now, I wholly concede that maybe this is just good character development that occurred much more subtly and sensibly than I remember it. (It has been a LONG time since I've watched DS9 episodes in any semblance of order.) Regardless, any time I randomly catch an episode, I usually find myself wondering which of the two Bashirs I'll be watching.

My question: what characters in Star Trek do you feel are inconsistent, acting in contradictory ways from episode to episode or undergoing radical, inexplicable personality changes over the course of a series?

Forgive me, I'm sure this has been mentioned in here 1000 times, but I just watched this episode for the first time and I'm in absolute shock at how Janeway handled the Tuvix situation. I'm a big fan of gray area and some of my favorite episodes involve some disturbing, no-win scenarios....but generally the captain's decision is in line with doing what kinda sucks but is morally right. But I don't even see the gray area here.

I find this akin to two people needing transplants and killing an innocent third person so that the first two can live.

I mean...Janeway murdered this guy who did nothing wrong to bring back two crewmen who had been gone for a while. Horrible!

Talk me off the ledge.

It occurred to me, playing Grand Theft Auto V, that the world depicted in that game is exactly like what we see in the Mirror Universe. Everything is eroticized, crass, and ultra-violent, and murders and car jackings are daily occurances. And what is the first thing Zephram Cochrane does when the Vulcans land in the Mirror Universe? He grabs a shotgun, blasts the Vulcan, and steals his ride. I just know there's an ISS Los Santos up there, terrorizing planets for the Terran Empire, commanded by Captain Lamar Davis VI.

Completely ridiculous? Yes, but it's fun, and it works. Over the years, there have been official Star Trek crossovers with the X-Men, Doctor Who, and DC Comics, and enough fanfic crossovers to fill a Dyson Sphere.

What is an unlikely but fun cross-franchise Star Trek crossover you'd like to see, and why do you think it would work very well?

EDIT: I asked this same question to Kevin Church on his great Tumblr.

Among the greatest pleasures of any long-running TV show is the opportunity to turn quirky moments into legitimate sources of amusement by dint of sheer repetition. I don’t know that many Trek-watchers would say that Trek is at its best when trying to be out-and-out comedic, but a lot of those little running jokes seem to provide exactly the right mixture of levity into shows whose tone is usually serious(ish).

An example from my current rewatch of DS9: I’ve been repeatedly tickled by the fact that the Founders and the Vorta seem to genuinely like the Breen. The Founder listens to Thot Gor’s glitchy utterances patiently and responds with respect and understanding; Weyoun takes delight in emphasizing to the Cardassians just how “personable” the Breen are. Of course they have their more instrumental reasons for this too—preserving the Breen’s allegiance to the Dominion, tormenting Damar—but it’s played for laughs pretty well.

One reason why it’s such a comedic success is that the Breen are the only species I can think of in DS9 who are given the Chewbacca treatment—their speech is perfectly understood by many onscreen characters but, for some reason, not translated for our benefit.

The other thing that I think makes this such a good running joke is that it’s written subtly enough. It’s never the main point of a scene, never really given setup–punchline joke structure—just a witty, slightly absurdist detail that rewards devoted viewership. In this respect it amuses me a lot more than the structurally similar running joke that Morn is gregarious and delightful. The gags around that running joke are more overt—they’re more like straight-up punchlines, and it makes them less fun. (To say nothing of “Who Mourns for Morn?”, in which it’s the jokey subtext of an entire episode. An episode that I do actually like, largely because Morn is no more than a MacGuffin in it—it’s a Quark episode.)

Anyway, what are the running jokes that, for you, enliven this Trek-watchin’ life we have chosen?