all 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 73 points 1 month ago (20 children)

Well back in the day it'd be every important officer plus the captain. So that's progress I suppose.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    That was one of the first major difference in operations that I noticed when I started TNG; the captain almost never goes on away missions. In TOS, the captain almost always led the away party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Considering there were only three members of the main cast, TOS had to use their stars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    there were only three members of the main cast

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yep. The main characters on Star Trek TOS are Captain Kirk, Commander Spock and Dr. McCoy. Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Rand, Chapel, Kyle etc. are supporting characters.

    TNG, once they got their shit together, was a true ensemble cast, the various characters took turns starring in individual episodes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I don't agree. TOS was just as much of an ensemble. Most promotional cast photos are group shots like this

    Sure, the big three got the most screen time and stories, but the rest had big parts as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I watched (some of) TOS recently. And it basically erased one of my complaints about Discovery being "The Michael Burnhan Show." Because boy TOS is literally "The James Kirk Show." Like, Spock is there, McCoy is mostly there, but everyone else felt really really like, quintary, not even Secondary, just way way down the line.

    I feel like everyone remembers Trek as "ensemble cast" from the movies and TNG on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Well, at least we know they will return. Imagine the transporter was full of uncredited redshirts...

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Tasha Yarr would like a word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    The Transporter has a pattern buffer. Why didn't they just keep copying one Redshirt guy to save lives. Like Mickey 17.

    "Time for an away mission Redshirt."

    But they don't tell him where, and then put him in the buffer. He will just, always be ready.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    This is how you get Tom Rikers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    When you think about it, it's weird that that asshole dude wanted to disassemble and possibly destroy Data to copy him when they could have just copied him using a transporter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Maybe Star Trek Captains have a sort of Meta knowledge?

    They know when they send important characters, they will most likely all come back.

    So by not sending redshirts, the captain is just looking out for the crew!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    "Hey now, they didn't send Troi down! She'll be able to do something to help on the ship... probably."

    "The away mission is to save Troi."

    "Well shit."


    Given that the transporter guy is still wearing the first version of the uniform, it's safe to assume that the Enterprise's yet-undiscovered MVP, Miles O'Brien is still on board. He'll be able to fix whatever pops up in the absence of the senior staff.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Amateur. Kirk would also go himself.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Picard will be fine manning the ship alone.

    Remember the Star Gazer and Wolf 359?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    How many officers died during those dangerous missions? Maybe this decision isn't that stupid?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Maybe Armus wouldn't have had to kill Tasha if Bing Crosby didn't have so many gambling debts to the Mafia you know what I'm sayin, badda bing badda boom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    It reminds me of when I send my A-team on a mission in XCOM: it's devastating if they die, but they're also the ones most likely to succeed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    XCOM A-Team in theory: They're the best, they can solve any problem.

    XCOM A-Team in practice: It's March and we just spotted a Snakeman on this terror mission so our soldiers will spend their remaining time units running back to the Skyranger while screaming like little girls.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Newer XCOM or og? OG xcom I'd always have at least 1/4 of my party be new recruits because the act of exiting the landing ship was nearly guarantees to kill a few people. Half the time my A team was just "whoever made it through last battle" and my b and c teams were all new recruits and a single officer for the morale boost who stayed in the ship in case I had to cut my losses and take off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The newer ones. Most of my time is in XCOM 2: WOTC. It becomes really tempting to put all your eggs in one basket by leveling an A-team.

    Everything like this that I hear about the originals just reinforces that I need to go play them. It sounds brutal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yesss, go play the original :3 It is a time honored tradition watching a new player lose an entire squad at the foot of the landing ship. If you do play, grab openxcom it's a fantastic engine replacement and even supports mods.

    The new games are more like playing an action movie. The old one is more like balancing a war where soldiers are meat with a dollar value. One of my favorite missions was doing a desperate tech smash and grab to get my research back on track. Over a dozen soldiers dead, more were left behind, many I had hired just for this so they basically showed up and shipped out to die. It was a massacre and a success

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    There was one where Picard died.

    Direct intervention by Q is the only thing that saved him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I mean, there were clearly only 20, maybe 30 people on the ship. So it makes sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    According to memory alpha a Galaxy-class starship such as the USS Enterprise-D normally had a complement of approximately 1,000-6,000 crewmembers, including civilian residents and families.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Honestly that’s one of the reasons I like Lower Decks. The bridge crew is all “fuck that, we got peons… I’ll just go manage some of them”

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Well yeah, have you seen how small their budget for extras is???

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, but when a red shirt dies in TNG, it's a more impactful loss since red shirts went from "expendable nobody" to "commanding officers."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    That's just alpha shift. We only ever see Star Trek shows from their viewpoint (with some episodes and lower decks as exceptions). AFAIK there's three or four shifts on board those vessels?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    Contributes to my theory that Star Trek is in reality an existentialist dystopia with everyone on the Enterprise competing to get onboard for the chance at a meaningful death.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    The Klingons are starting to sound more and more reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments