How would you kill the King?

[Sea Tyger]

His heart eaten by Kor.

Too bad John Colicos isn't around to do that.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Kang then.

[tonyg]

Some ways I have killed off Kirk:

A) Old Age.

B) Stroke after being stuck at a desk job.

C) Something similar to how everyone thought he died. He saves the ship, but gets killed in the process.

D) Ex-girlfriend.

[JALU3]

D) Ex-girlfriend.

 

Not just one . . . but all off them . . . sudduced by a sexy amazonian feminine bisexual . . . who would be the last lover of Kirk . . . ok . . . that's going a bit overboard. Excuse me.

[Evan van Eyk]

How about being shot by a very old lawyer, who claims that only he can be Denny Crane ( and refuses any further comments ).

[JALU3]

Or how about he gets squashed in a retirement home by "The Big Giant Head".

Or he can be trapped in a world filled with his multiple alternative selves . . . and come to loath himself for all of eternity.

[tonyg]

 

Not just one . . . but all off them . . . sudduced by a sexy amazonian feminine bisexual . . . who would be the last lover of Kirk . . . ok . . . that's going a bit overboard. Excuse me.

Or he flees back into the Nexus to avoid a host of paternity suits. Just imagine how many illegitimate children he might have fathered.

Fortunately for James T., I recall something about Starfleet personnel being on Birth Control.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

 

Not just one . . . but all off them . . . sudduced by a sexy amazonian feminine bisexual . . . who would be the last lover of Kirk . . . ok . . . that's going a bit overboard. Excuse me.

You mean her?

Fortunately for James T., I recall something about Starfleet personnel being on Birth Control.

In the future, they have the Male Pill. Which I'm sure McCoy slips into Kirk's whiskey.

[tonyg]

THe birth control thing was something that I read in the Star Trek book that came out during the production of TOS. Gene mentioned that some measures would probably be used, since men and women in space for long periods of time would lead to some people on ship having sex, but that it was something that probably couldn't be mentioned on screen (not in 1967, anyway).

It does make a lot of sense. The alternatives would be:

1) The crew going it's tour of duty (five years) without sex. Even Spock coudln't time it right, and he can go seven years.

2) Lots of people going on maternity leave or being reassigned (TOS), or a serious drop in efficiency (TNG) with cremembers being pregnant, or dealing with newborns.

3) Starfleet having a reptuation for "Randyness" that would make modern saliors and marines blush.

4) Ship's Sexual Therapists.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Well, by the TNG-era it seems to be a fuzzy matter of policy, since Sisko forgets his without mention of any reprimand.

[tonyg]

Well, by the TNG-era it seems to be a fuzzy matter of policy, since Sisko forgets his without mention of any reprimand.

Well, I don't think the matter was as much a "do or else" but sort of a suggested course or action. By the TNG era, civilians live aboard starships and can raise families. So the situation is a bit different.

[JALU3]

It may still be an unwritten policy on some ships, except between known couples . . . and then one is then reassigned to a less hazardous assignment for the duration of that person's parental hood, when one decides to become a parent. And on some it may be outright policy aboard ship.

[tonyg]

It may still be an unwritten policy on some ships, except between known couples . . . and then one is then reassigned to a less hazardous assignment for the duration of that person's parental hood, when one decides to become a parent. And on some it may be outright policy aboard ship.

I suspect that it is. It makes perfect sense.

I suspect that families serving aboard starships together is going to be discontinued. As TNG showed, life aboard a starship is really too dangerous for a family. It's one thing if you and your life partner are both in Starfleet and wish to share the risks. Its something else when your life partner is a teacher, cook, or writer, or if you have children.

Every time a Galaxy-class ship got destroyed in TNG, a bunch of innocent children died needlessly, because their parents were irresponsible enough to bring children along on a front line ship.

I think that in the mid 24th century, the Federation got coocky, and thought that they had the exploration thing down pat. By the Dominion War, that sortof smugness is gone, and they realize that space is still dangerous-especially on the borders.

[C5]

I think that in the mid 24th century, the Federation got coocky, and thought that they had the exploration thing down pat. By the Dominion War, that sortof smugness is gone, and they realize that space is still dangerous-especially on the borders.

An alternate explanation would simply be that, by the time the Galaxy-class was created, the Federation had not encountered a serious war for some time. The Borg and the Dominion were very dangerous threats that forced them to send to the front ships that were not meant to engage in combat.

Otherwise, it depends on whether you want the Trekverse to be Roddenberryist or realist.

[tonyg]

An alternate explanation would simply be that, by the time the Galaxy-class was created, the Federation had not encountered a serious war for some time. The Borg and the Dominion were very dangerous threats that forced them to send to the front ships that were not meant to engage in combat.

I don't think the two concepts are alternates. More like cause and effect.

Otherwise, it depends on whether you want the Trekverse to be Roddenberryist or realist.

I'm not sure I'd consider Ira Berh's dark future to be any more "real" than GR's we're all nice in the future, interpretation.

Proably a more realist view would have it that any cultures advanced enough to have FTL travel are probably evolved beyond the point that we can relate to them anymore. More like they would view all the Treek cultures as primitive savages.