Compare and Contrast: DISCO vs the Other Treks (and Non-Treks)

[paigow]

During this 10 year period, all these ridged Klingons will go into hiding; thereby allowing non ridged Kor, Koloth & Kang to attack Kirk, Spock, McCoy....Although they had ridges for DS9 reunion episode....

[Adira]

So they redesigned Klingons just because they felt like it?  Awesome.

[starri]

17 minutes ago, Adira said:

So they redesigned Klingons just because they felt like it?  Awesome.

Almost like all the other times they redesigned the Klingons.  And the Romulans.  And the Trill.  And the Borg.

[Adira]

2 minutes ago, starri said:

Almost like all the other times they redesigned the Klingons.  And the Romulans.  And the Trill.  And the Borg.

It's one thing to redesign the Klingons after 20 years and only one (3 year) show and quite another thing to redesign them after 10 years and FOUR shows (spanning 18 years) where they've looked consistent for almost 20 years AND explained why the Klingons of the original series look different.  Changing them just to change them when they've been a certain way for decades is just stupid.

But look, I think we all get that you don't mind all the changes Discovery is making.  Clearly other people DO mind.  Let's just agree to disagree.

[readster]

3 hours ago, Adira said:

It's one thing to redesign the Klingons after 20 years and only one (3 year) show and quite another thing to redesign them after 10 years and FOUR shows (spanning 18 years) where they've looked consistent for almost 20 years AND explained why the Klingons of the original series look different.  Changing them just to change them when they've been a certain way for decades is just stupid.

But look, I think we all get that you don't mind all the changes Discovery is making.  Clearly other people DO mind.  Let's just agree to disagree.

I agree, I mean if they show a set of Klingons that have looked consistent since the 1980s and then show these. Then ok, the classic: "Have your cake and eat it too." The Trill change was because of Terry Farrel's sensitive skin as she broke out in a rash and they figured: "Well one episode, people can live with the change." The Romulans they at least said: "They aren't part of the Empire, we just shaved their heads and gave them tattoos." I do agree the: "We changed them just for the sake of change." tends to backfire on productions from TV to comics very fast. 

[Vandy10]

People keep mentioning the Abrams' universe and why the show runners didn't set Discovery in that universe or wondering about crossovers, and I thought I'd throw it out there that I'm pretty sure the Abrams' 'verse is off limits to them. After listening to Larry Nemechik (sp?) on podcasts for a few years now, it seems Paramount got the movie rights in the divorce and CBS got the TV rights. So it'd be too much complicated legal wrangling to mix the two. Kind of like how you'll never, ever see the X-Men (or any mention of them) on ABC's Agents of Shield.

[starri]

This will probably be my last post about the Klingons until we actually see the show, and it's not so much about the makeup as it is comments that I've seen about the Discovery Klingons being a bit culturally different than the ones we're all familiar with.

One of the things that's always kind of bugged me about Trek is that any society, except for humanity, is usually portrayed as having only one approach to life.  In reality, we should see peaceful Klingons, generous Ferengi, Bajoran atheists, and Vulcans who are...if not emotional, then at least people who interpret Surak's teachings a little differently.  We've seen some characters who don't quite align fully with their society's cultural norms, but those are often treated as oddballs.  About the only times I can think of where they weren't were the Cardassians and the Romulans, and the dominant society in both cases was treated as "bad."

I suppose you could make the argument that since the Prophets literally exist, you'd be less likely to see an atheist, but on the other hand, there is some evidence that there was a historical Jesus (or, more likely, his name was Joshua), but two-thirds of the world doesn't believe in his death and resurrection.  I'm not a Christian, but I don't have any probably believing there probably was a charismatic, itinerant rabbi kicking around Judea and Asia Minor in the first century.

[ae2]

11 minutes ago, starri said:

One of the things that's always kind of bugged me about Trek is that any society, except for humanity, is usually portrayed as having only one approach to life.  In reality, we should see peaceful Klingons, generous Ferengi, Bajoran atheists, and Vulcans who are...if not emotional, then at least people who interpret Surak's teachings a little differently.  We've seen some characters who don't quite align fully with their society's cultural norms, but those are often treated as oddballs.  About the only times I can think of where they weren't were the Cardassians and the Romulans, and the dominant society in both cases was treated as "bad."

The lack of character depth with Star Trek races typically leads back to them being mere plot devices to explore social and moral issues. I think sometime around 1996 the various show runners realized this was becoming a problem and began to give some of the recurring races more depth and diversity. In DS9 we see a Klingon lawyer, some social change happening with the Ferengi (a woman... wearing clothes!), and a Vulcan serial killer. They also gave quite a bit of depth to the Vorta, Jem'Hadar, Cardassians, and even the Bajorans at times.

Enterprise, despite all its flaws and fan-hatred, actually did the best job in this regard. There are Vulcans who have shunned the logical way of life. A Vulcan revolution occurs. We see a Klingon doctor and researcher who specifically address the stereotype, saying that although the warrior class rules that not every Klingon is a warrior.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see Klingons in Discovery that aren't the typical warriors we're used to.

[starri]

The one probably that I had with ENT's approach of Vulcans was that most of the ones who weren't the ones we were used to were depicted as total assholes.  The only prominent ones who weren't, T'Pau and T'Pol's mother T'Les were secretly followers of Surak's true teachings.  T'Pol only chilled out after she spent more time with the humans and realized that they had a lot to offer.  And then as soon as Surak's writings were uncovered, BANG, monoculture that we're used to.

[Lugal]

I think TNG gave us a few hints of aliens outside their mainstream culture, like an episode with Ferengi and Klingon scientists.  I think they established on TNG that the Bajoran culture is something like 500,000 years old, so I could believe that they would have developed more of a monoculture in that time.

[starri]

Human society has existed in a form we would recognize for about 10,000 years, if not longer, depending on how you count.  We're probably as tribal, if not moreso, than we've been at any other point in our history as a species.

They were also REALLY inconsistent with Bajoran history.  When we first meet them, Picard says they had an advanced culture before humans were walking upright, but they didn't have spaceflight until the 1500s on our calendar, and had a caste system as recently as the Occupation.

[paigow]

If the movies are canon....VI: The Undiscovered Country - Kirk & McCoy had Klingon legal counsel before DS9....

[SmithW6079]

I must confess, I don't care what the Klingons look like -- ridged, not ridged, barely ridged, looking like lizards -- but that's because I hate the Klingons. Or at least, I hate that the Klingons are the go-to bad guys because they're a one-note race, which makes them boring. TNG went to the Klingon well way too often; I got sick and tired of Worf's-fucking-honor-is-offended-and-he-must-restore-it stories. At least Enterprise tempered that obsession some (although they had the stupid temporal war). 

I just realized that the acronym for "Star Trek: Discovery" is "STD." Probably not an auspicious sign that your series is short for "sexually transmitted disease."

[starri]

DS9 made the Klingons cool and added a lot of depth to them.

When they first announced that Worf was joining the show, I was convinced he was going to ruin it.  Instead, the show made him awesome.

ETA:  It was like he had always been a DS9 character and no one knew it.

Edited July 31, 2017 by starri

[SmithW6079]

According to an article I read in TV Guide, one of the characters is the adopted sister of Spock. So basically,  CBS is saying "Fuck you" to continuity and the fans.

[paigow]

23 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

According to an article I read in TV Guide, one of the characters is the adopted sister of Spock. So basically,  CBS is saying "Fuck you" to continuity and the fans.

Since this is the original timeline, Sybok should also exist. He is a half-brother to Spock who was introduced and killed in movie canon [Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier]. Old Sarek certainly had a modern family....

[readster]

57 minutes ago, paigow said:

Since this is the original timeline, Sybok should also exist. He is a half-brother to Spock who was introduced and killed in movie canon [Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier]. Old Sarek certainly had a modern family....

Well you know that Vulcan Ponfar, you get around. 

[johnar]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:14 PM, wilnil said:

I think all the problems with canon/continuity basically boil down to:

Gene Roddenberry (and much of his original TOS creative team) have died or are very elderly, and even many of those who came on board for the TNG-era shows are also probably retired or thinking about it.

So the "torch-bearers" for the Trek franchise now are people hired by Paramount and CBS, probably with the specific mandate of "refreshing the brand" rather than "making the kind of show Gene would make" -- i.e. "screw canon, do something new!"

Throw in the fact that even the wardrobe, set and makeup designers will want to demonstrate some originality rather than duplicate what came before, and you end up with a whole production that's at best going to do something "inspired by" the previous series instead of truly linked to them. For the latter to happen, you'd need a real Trek devotee who could convince the money people to go along with it, and I (cynically, I guess) don't think that's possible anymore, this far into the Remake/Reboot Era.

The brilliance of Star Trek (TOS to BEYOND) is that it is being invented as it goes along. 

TOS would have never made it out of the starting gate if CANON knit pickers existed in 1966!

Berman and Braga  were in their prime with ST ENT and if boycotters would ever give the show a try they would see the brilliance of their filling in gaps like the animosity between Terrans and Vulcans.  That ENT did not run for 10 seasons really burns my gizzard. At the very least, the timeline contamination from ST FIRST CONTACT would explain the fancier gizmos and sleeker design of the NX 01 (or explain why there was never an Enterprise in the NX program before ENT).

And as I said, the "canon" was and is always in flux. At best it is only a guideline not bible.

Ugh!

P.S.

How many times has Batman or Spiderman been reinvented?

Star Trek is only a show. It's for entertainment.

I am 56 and I was there for the first run of TOS and I loved it since then.

And even I know it's only a show.

FREE TREK from canon pharisees!

Edited September 9, 2017 by johnar

[legaleagle53]

16 minutes ago, johnar said:

TOS would have never made it out of the starting gate if CANON knit pickers existed in 1966!

That's because there WAS no established canon in 1966 to violate, much less to nitpick, which is where your whole argument falls apart. Fifty-one years, four shows, and what -- twelve? -- movies later, there's a HELL of a lot of canon to obsess over when it's being so grossly violated.  And yes, half a century of canon IS the Bible to those of us who, like you, have been around from the beginning (like you, I'm 56, but my first exposure to TOS was after it had been off the air for a few years and was only seen in syndicated reruns whenever the local station felt like airing it).  There's a reason that so many hardcore Trekkies are rejecting Discovery and embracing The Orville instead before either show has even aired, although from what I've read, The Orville has plenty of problems of its own that the critics are picking over.

[johnar]

29 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

That's because there WAS no established canon in 1966 to violate, much less to nitpick, which is where your whole argument falls apart.

No, actually you MADE my point.

Thanks!

[johnar]

31 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Fifty-one years, four shows, and what -- twelve? -- movies later, there's a HELL of a lot of canon to obsess over when it's being so grossly violated.  And yes, half a century of canon IS the Bible to those of us who, like you, have been around from the beginning (like you, I'm 56, but my first exposure to TOS was after it had been off the air for a few years and was only seen in syndicated reruns whenever the local station felt like airing it).  There's a reason that so many hardcore Trekkies are rejecting Discovery and embracing The Orville instead before either show has even aired, although from what I've read, The Orville has plenty of problems of its own that the critics are picking over

Okay. Tried to merge posts but programming won out. IDAK.  ← Lost in Space Ref

I agree there must be some semblance of order and guidelines, but not a rigid toe the line or else (TV show killing) committee of purists and pharisees that make creating the show near impossible.

Aside from a prop in Sisko's office, has there ever been a Daedalus class ship on display from TOS to Beyond?

Yet ENT got hammered for NX 01 not being one.

[paigow]

Berman and Braga ran out of ideas during Voyager...relying on the Starfleet Temporal Police from the Future to manufacture plots....Similarly, they started Enterprise by search & replace on Voyager temporal scripts... It seemed like Kirk would not need a 5 year mission because Archer had already done everything....

[Lugal]

Berman and Braga were always complaining about how restrictive the canon was, but it really wasn't, (it was hardly pre-Crisis DC comics) they were just lazy.  Yes, there will always be the hardcore nitpickers, but most fans can overlook the niggling little bits, but Enterprise had some big problems.  The main problem, beyond the continuity violations, was Enterprise always had a feeling of a certain laziness.  With the temporal cold war that started it, they gave themselves an out when the continuity didn't match up.  Or it was just bad plotting, like "Aquisition" where they meet the Ferengi two hundred years too early and then Archer lets them go after they took over the ship and tried to sell the crew (or at least the women) into slavery.  He didn't even bother to ask who the hell they were.  Then we don't meet them again for another 200 years?  Then there's "Oasis" which doesn't violate any canon, but it features a community of holograms which was really similar to Deep Space Nine's "Shadowplay" (and they even had Rene Auberjonois guest in it). 

I feel like Enterprise had the most wasted potential.  They had some great episodes, like "The Andorian Incident" which does fill in some of the backstory we wanted to see.  Manny Coto tried to fix things when he took over, but by then most of the fans had abandoned the show.

[starri]

49 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I feel like Enterprise had the most wasted potential.

I'd still give that to Voyager.  It's still a better series overall, but it's a show that could have gotten straight As--particularly with actresses as good as Kate Mulgrew and Jeri Ryan as the main characters--and settled for Bs most of the time.

Enterprise just didn't seem to have the same oomph, although it wasn't for lack of trying by a lot of the cast.  And they did have a handful of truly phenomenal episodes.

[Unusual Suspect]

16 hours ago, starri said:

I'd still give that to Voyager.  It's still a better series overall, but it's a show that could have gotten straight As--particularly with actresses as good as Kate Mulgrew and Jeri Ryan as the main characters--and settled for Bs most of the time.

Enterprise just didn't seem to have the same oomph, although it wasn't for lack of trying by a lot of the cast.  And they did have a handful of truly phenomenal episodes.

I'll agree. There is a good number of Voyager episodes that start strong with an interesting premise, and then just fall apart in the third act. "Worst Case Scenario", for example, devolved into a hilariously bad holodeck malfunction.

From what I've heard, this was due to DS9, in a way. Apparently (and take this with a grain of salt), Berman was unwilling to fight with Behr and the DS9 showrunners, which gave them the latitude to make the show the way they wanted. And Berman would tamp down on Voyager's showrunners, kinda in retaliation ... or at least, there wasn't anyone in Voyager's staff willing to take on Berman in the same way and fight for a more unique show.

[johnar]

Did anyone see The Orville tonight?

[paigow]

21 minutes ago, johnar said:

Did anyone see The Orville tonight?

Gave up after 15 minutes....Seemed like Seth just found the 3.5" floppy disk that had this script on it...

[Unusual Suspect]

4 hours ago, johnar said:

Did anyone see The Orville tonight?

Yeah. Meh. I might have smirked a bit, but most of the jokes were boring, and for that matter, so was the "action". Running around, shooting, even the space battle ... boring.

It really is Star Trek with the serial numbers filed off, but it ain't no Galaxy Quest.

[paigow]

On 9/9/2017 at 2:33 PM, legaleagle53 said:

There's a reason that so many hardcore Trekkies are rejecting Discovery and embracing The Orville instead before either show has even aired...

I did not know until the opening credits that Braga and other TNG staff were involved with Orville.  Maybe they are the reason for great expectations...

[jsbt]

The Orville is not good.

[legaleagle53]

2 hours ago, jsbt said:

The Orville is not good.

That depends on whom you ask.  Most old-school Trekkies love it because they feel it has the old-school vibe of TOS and TNG in particular that Discovery lacks -- last Thursday's episode "About a Girl" being a prime example. Personally, I agree with them.  I'm only watching the Discovery pilot out of curiosity.

[Idiotboy]

Those new-look Klingons look like a bunch of Unas stolen from SG-1 (well, it was the Unas' karma to be chattel). As much as I enjoyed TNG and the attendant movies, the Rodenberry 'verse always struck me as rather pie in the sky. With the new character conflicts and in its dynastic backdrop, STD is stealing a few moves from the Babylon 5 playbook. Good on them. CBS had me at Jason Isaacs and lost me at All Access. Retreating to my bomb shelter now ...

[jsbt]

4 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

That depends on whom you ask.  Most old-school Trekkies love it because they feel it has the old-school vibe of TOS and TNG in particular that Discovery lacks

I am an old school Trekkie. I think it blows and is embarrassing fanfic. Every inch of it is stuck in 1991, including the syndicated budget. Except the writing - the writing's much worse than TNG.

Edited September 25, 2017 by jsbt

[legaleagle53]

Just now, jsbt said:

I am an old school Trekkie. I think it blows and is embarrassing fanfic. Every inch of it is stuck in 1991, including the syndicated budget. Except the writing - the writing's much worse than TNG.

So how do you think it compares to Discovery? From what I'm reading on this forum, Discovery is coming off far worse than The Orville has in terms of overall rejection by the viewers.  And I agree with those who put the Orville episode "About a Girl" on the same level that they do "Measure of a Man" and "The Outcast."

[azshadowwalker]

On 7/31/2017 at 3:03 PM, starri said:

DS9 made the Klingons cool and added a lot of depth to them.

When they first announced that Worf was joining the show, I was convinced he was going to ruin it.  Instead, the show made him awesome.

ETA:  It was like he had always been a DS9 character and no one knew it.

I feel the opposite. DS9 ruined Worf, making him a simpering fool chasing a woman who the writers thought was the most magnificent thing in the universe. Too bad she was just an average attractive woman who was not nearly that compelling. What they did to Worf is one of the things I hate most about DS9, and why I would sit through seven seasons of temporal war before I revisit that series. 

[jsbt]

2 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

So how do you think it compares to Discovery? From what I'm reading on this forum, Discovery is coming off far worse than The Orville has in terms of overall rejection by the viewers.  And I agree with those who put the Orville episode "About a Girl" on the same level that they do "Measure of a Man" and "The Outcast."

Uh... no, I do not put anything Orville on the level of anything Trek save perhaps particularly bad episodes of VOY or ENT. Or maybe the racist African warrior episode of TNG.

Trekkies always hate new Trek. That's nothing new since 1986. I'm mid-DSC right now but digging it. Outside the hardcore fan bubble the show is getting a very positive reception - though several other Trek forums seem to dig it, too.

Edited September 25, 2017 by jsbt

[starri]

6 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

From what I'm reading on this forum, Discovery is coming off far worse than The Orville has in terms of overall rejection by the viewers.

This isn't the only forum.  TrekBBS in particular seems to have loved it.  And Twitter and AVClub were both mostly positive.

ETA:  In the Continuity Porn segment of tonight's program, I believe I caught references to all five other series.

• One of the Starfleet ships at the Battle at the Binary Stars was the USS Shran
• One of the others was the USS T'Plana Hath
• The first Vulcan Hello was done at H'Atoria, the colony where All Good Things...Future!Worf served as governor.
• One of the Great Houses of the House of D'Ghor
• The fact that we met a would-be Klingon messiah named T'Kuvma while a bunch of Klingon zealots thought Miral Paris was the fulfillment of the prophesy about a savior called the Kuvah'magh can't be a coincidence.

Edited September 25, 2017 by starri

[Sandman]

I suppose one could argue that the "no conflict within the ranks of Starfleet" rule was set aside as of The Undiscovered Country, what with Admiral Cartwright and Valeris getting their conspiracy on. (But maybe the movies were under lesser constraints than the series?)

I did enjoy the Simpsons quote from the episode thread on the subject of "Again with the Klingons."

The idea of fandom rising to the level of employment as "fact" checkers for a fictional universe strikes me as  ... unlikely, and possibly alarming.

[satrunrose]

I seem to remember that the no conflict rule was in full force in the first two seasons of TNG (and partially explains why they are...not so good) and started to relax a bit after that. I've never quite understood why Voyager seemed to back-track on that one, though. I always thought there should have been much more tension between Chakotay and Laneway if only to give poor Robert Beltram something to do. 

[rereader2]

On 6/29/2017 at 9:28 PM, starri said:

Why did the Klingons change between TOS and TMP?  Why again (subtly, but they are different) between TMP and TSFS?

[xaxat]

I'm not a fan of the idea of canon. Especially since it's an idea that was cobbled together after the fact as science fiction franchises grew haphazardly through the seventies, eighties and nineties.

I judge each production on its individual merits. I think the idea of Star Trek (peaceful exploration of the stars) provides a very  resilient story telling framework, (Much to the credit of Gene Roddenberry) that can be adapted to its time.

It's kind of like Shakespeare. His plays (including those based on real life historical figures) have been adapted in huge variety of ways. Many he wouldn't have recognized. Some work, many don't.

After two episodes I don't know if this version of ST will work, but I'm optimistic. 

(Another reason I don't care about canon? I have a shitty memory.)

[starri]

Couple other ConPorn bullets.

• Georgiou had a bottle of Chateau Picard in her ready room.
• The Shenzhou was a Walker-class ship.

[SmithW6079]

22 hours ago, jsbt said:

I am an old school Trekkie. I think it blows and is embarrassing fanfic. Every inch of it is stuck in 1991, including the syndicated budget. Except the writing - the writing's much worse than TNG.

I'm an old school Trekkie too, and I'm quite enjoying The Orville. It's a little rough, but it's got a good heart ftom what I can tell after three episodes, which is a lot different than 50 years of history, five series and 13 feature-length films.

19 hours ago, jsbt said:

Uh... no, I do not put anything Orville on the level of anything Trek save perhaps particularly bad episodes of VOY or ENT. Or maybe the racist African warrior episode of TNG.

Trekkies always hate new Trek. That's nothing new since 1986. I'm mid-DSC right now but digging it. Outside the hardcore fan bubble the show is getting a very positive reception - though several other Trek forums seem to dig it, too.

Again, I'm a fairly hardcore fan, and I've enjoyed most iterations of Trek (although I gave up on Enterprise), but if you're going to take on an iconic series, you should have respect for it. I didn't see respect for Trek in Discovery. As a stand-alone sci-fi series, it probably wouldn't be bad.

[ByaNose]

Did not like the open credits at all. It's like I'm watching paper on my screen. Very low budget and low tech. Epic fail. Even, the theme wasn't that good. Pass!

[marinw]

It’s already been said, but if the do another Trek series, I hope they set post-Nemesis. There is enough conflict with the Dominion and The Borg to keep things threatening if the writers don't have the imagination to write stories about a society at peace. The Klingons and Romulans can act as Freminies to the Federation.

I would like to see a series set a few year after a conflict with the Borg. The Federation and their allies won-that’s why they aren’t all assimilated. There is a lot of rebuilding to do, but the overall theme is one of hope. Maybe they can focus on going outside the Milky way.

The technology could be whatever TPTB want it to be. Extra points if they adopt some Borg tech.

Edited September 27, 2017 by marinw

[readster]

On 9/26/2017 at 3:35 PM, marinw said:

It’s already been said, but if the do another Trek series, I hope they set post-Nemesis. There is enough conflict with the Dominion and The Borg to keepa things threatening if the writers don't have the imagination to write stories about a society at peace. The Klingons and Romulans can act as Freminies to the Federation.

I would like to see a series set a few year after a conflict with the Borg. The Federation and their allies won-that’s why they aren’t all assimilated. There is a lot of rebuilding to do, but the overall theme is one of hope. Maybe they can focus on going outside the Milky way.

The technology could be whatever TPTB want it to be. Extra points if they adopt some Borg tech.

I agree, they want to keep going back to "Before" instead of: "What's next!" They could go to late 24th century, to where cast members from TNG to VOY are still alive, but time to move on. What is by now, the Gamma Quadrant isn't off limits, things with the Dominion have been set for years, but there are still conflicts. How about introducing a new enemy that doesn't care about domination or assimilation, but total destruction. Races were mentioned, but it's time to move on to new types. I don't know why they have to keep going "BACK" move on. 

[starri]

If you're playing along at home, Discovery and the USS Glenn are/were Crossfield-class starships.

I hate that Starfleet ship names tend to be so human-centric, and especially Western Hemisphere-centric, but I do think it's cool they're using all these old NASA names.

[readster]

1 hour ago, starri said:

If you're playing along at home, Discovery and the USS Glenn are/were Crossfield-class starships.

I hate that Starfleet ship names tend to be so human-centric, and especially Western Hemisphere-centric, but I do think it's cool they're using all these old NASA names.

In Timeless, I loved that CAPTAIN Geordi Laforge was in charge of the USS Challenger. Great use of the gray suits with the new com badges. I've been trying to model the look for years. 

[starri]

I also like that, with the participation of the USS Ride, the USS Earhart and the USS T'Plana Hath in the Battle at the Binary Stars, the number of Starfleet ships named after women has risen 300%.

[Kromm]

Gonna use spoiler tags, since it's not clear what the spoiler rules are in this particular topic.

So lets talk about

Spoiler

spore-based Supertransporters. I can think of a few times those would have been nice to have, for example, about Voyager, or even on Deep Space 9. Seeing as how they never mention anything like that... there has to be a reason.