Most Offensive Star Trek Movies and Episodes
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmmm.......I don't understand.
So it's basically ok for someone ( a foreign government) to come in the middle of the night and transport you to a different location just to get something from the region you live in. If anything a government engaging in kidnapping and theft should be offensive.
Or is it a case that it's ok for a "more advanced" cultures to do what they like with "less advanced" cultures if it benefits them.
When it comes to the Son'a and Baku doesn't it make sense that the Son'a have us much right to what happens on the planet as the Baku? They are both, one race and they both lived on the planet together. The Federation should have not gotten involved in what seems to be a potential civil war but the question is would it be okay to make a deal afterwards should the Son'a win in that conflict?
We also have the issue dealing with the fact that the Dominion War was going on during that time and we know the Son'a was working with the Dominion in a later episode. Makes me wonder if the threat of the Dominion getting hold of the planet somehow factored into the arrangement.
Jason
We also have the issue dealing with the fact that the Dominion War was going on during that time and we know the Son'a was working with the Dominion in a later episode. Makes me wonder if the threat of the Dominion getting hold of the planet somehow factored into the arrangement.
Jason
The Federation didn't know at the time the Son'a and the Bak'u were the same race. That fact isn't revealed until a good portion into the movie.
That's true about them not knowing that. I kind of forgot about the Admiral being shocked. It was known that they were making Ketracel White for the Dominion so I think war issue's could have factored into the choice to work with them. Plus I wonder just how informed Starfleet Command and the Federation coucil and President was aware of what is going on. I did get the impression that Doughtery was kind of working on his own. Granted he would need some kind of support so maybe some help from Starfleet Intelligence or Security might also be in on it. Also can't ever discout Section 31 but I doubt it with them. Even though they have gotten help from regular Starfleet before like Bashir and Ross I always figure that they work alone more often than getting connected with official Starfleet operations.
Jason
I'm only greatly offended by two episodes. There's lots of episodes of Star Trek where I don't agree with the moral message eg Janeway, Picard don't kill off the Borg where they have the opportunity, Kirk allows a planet to take a virus thing out of his blood to kill off half its population, Picard allowing primitive civilisations to perish.
The two episodes that offend me are the Cogenitor from ENT and the episode in TNG where they pick up humans from the 20th/21st century.
I could rave on and on about the Cogenitor but to sum it up I hate how Archer makes Trip feel bad for telling the Cogenitor guy/girl that they could have a better life, that slavery is basically OK.
The TNG episode where they pick up the frozen humans and then Riker goes on and on how superior and more civilised humans are in the 24th are is pretty offensive. Makes me dislike the 'perfect' humans of the future,
While people seem to be offended by the sexism of TOS, I'm not that keen by the camera angles in TNG looking down Troi's cleavage episode after episode.
The two episodes that offend me are the Cogenitor from ENT and the episode in TNG where they pick up humans from the 20th/21st century.
I could rave on and on about the Cogenitor but to sum it up I hate how Archer makes Trip feel bad for telling the Cogenitor guy/girl that they could have a better life, that slavery is basically OK.
The TNG episode where they pick up the frozen humans and then Riker goes on and on how superior and more civilised humans are in the 24th are is pretty offensive. Makes me dislike the 'perfect' humans of the future,
While people seem to be offended by the sexism of TOS, I'm not that keen by the camera angles in TNG looking down Troi's cleavage episode after episode.
Archer was entirely justified in laying the smackdown on Trip.
I don't like how the Vissians treated their cogenitors any more than you do, but the simple fact is, Trip has no right to dictate anything to them.
As we saw, cogenitors are extremely rare, yet at the same time are essential to the reproduction of the Vissian species. The death of even ONE cogenitor could have near-catastrophic implications. Trip is personally responsible for one such death. Why shouldn't Archer be angry with him?
Far as I'm concerned, episodes like this are proof positive of the absolute importance of the Prime Directive.
Last edited:
I can't remember another TNG episode that had a guest starring cast that was predominantly, or exclusively, black. Of the 170+ TNG episodes and storylines, I wonder why the writers chose that particular story for that particular cast. The kidnapping (of Yar) plot seemed like it was playing on the stereotype of the black man lusting after and stealing the white man's woman.
I also wonder, of the 170+ TNG episodes, why there wasn't a few more episodes that featured a predominantly black cast in vastly different types of stories; and not for pc reasons, but merely for a change of pace.
I don't remember Geordi being outraged so much as disappointed and confused. And I wouldn't say he was stalking Leah Brahams so much as he got carried away with a fantasy about her as his perfect woman.
Yes. This exactly. TOS was a product of its time, and should be viewed in that context, rather than expecting it to conform to the standards of today.
That's a total self-serving lie that Roddenberry invented to save face with Majel Barrett. NBC was all for a female first officer. They just didn't want Roddenberry's mistress playing the part.
In the TNG era, yes. In TOS, the interference was usually warranted and justified. Someone (Nicholas Meyer, maybe?) said that TOS was about gunboat diplomacy. The post-Vietnam era Treks all have a decidedly different flavor, because Americans had learned that they weren't always right.
Absolutely. The first season version of the TNG crew is pretty insufferable with all their going on about how superior they are to those poor dumb 20th century humans who were watching their show. Apparently modesty wasn't one of the superior traits humanity picked up in 400 years.
The way I saw it Archer was angry because he was embarrassed because the captain of the other ship he was chummy with was angry with him. Archer couldn't care less about the Cogenitor as a person - only the effect on his potential future as a statesman.
It was all about how bad it was for everyone else - you know its unfortunate for the slave-owners when a slave dies. They have to go to all the trouble of getting a new slave, training them up and all.
Do Federation planets in the future allow member planets to have slavery? Do Starfleet officers become BFF with the slave owners. I know that it was suggested to Pike in the pilot episode that he might want to become a trader in Orion-slave women but I thought that was done in mockery in some some of illicit fantasy not that the Federation condoned it.
Federation law prohibits caste-based discrimination, so I would have to say no.
But even if the Federation had existed at this point, the Prime Directive would not allow them to interfere. The Vissians aren't members, after all. Although their treatment of the cogenitors might well keep them from being admitted.
The Host- Was never really really offended by this one, in fact I never really noticed this scene until some time ago.
It's only because of Beverly's reaction to the new female Odan. It was clear she was happy when she was expecting a male to be the new host. It quickly disappeared when she saw it was a female. She even looked shocked when Odan held her hand and kissed her wrist for goodbye.
It gave slight suggestion that same sex relationship weren't normal and only heterosexual ones were.
Dear Doctor - The Dr. Phlox's idea that a certain species is dying of a wide spread condition is because evolution meant them to be- they were a "evolutionary dead end".
Except he admitted he found the cure for it already--he just didn't think they should give it to them, because he felt they were meant to be wiped out by evolution.
Turnabout Intruder - I would say this one, but I like it too much. It's more funny to me than anything. But there is some pretty sexist stuff in it depending on who you ask.
It's only because of Beverly's reaction to the new female Odan. It was clear she was happy when she was expecting a male to be the new host. It quickly disappeared when she saw it was a female. She even looked shocked when Odan held her hand and kissed her wrist for goodbye.
It gave slight suggestion that same sex relationship weren't normal and only heterosexual ones were.
Dear Doctor - The Dr. Phlox's idea that a certain species is dying of a wide spread condition is because evolution meant them to be- they were a "evolutionary dead end".
Except he admitted he found the cure for it already--he just didn't think they should give it to them, because he felt they were meant to be wiped out by evolution.
Turnabout Intruder - I would say this one, but I like it too much. It's more funny to me than anything. But there is some pretty sexist stuff in it depending on who you ask.
The idea was that same sex relationships weren't normal for Beverly. But I haven't seen that episode in ages, so maybe they flubbed it in execution.
It seems like it came off wrong in execution.
It came off as somewhat hypocritical seeing that a few seasons earlier someone said that judging by appearance was "the last of the human prejudices" or something.
She could have just said it plainly, but it was if the show didn't want to risk the image of 24th century humans, so she sort of blames it on human failings--except a few seasons earlier the show bragged that humans didn't have those types of failings anymore.
This wasn't judging by appearances. It was being asked to bump uglies with your own gender when that's not your orientation. There's quite a difference between those two things.
I think you're reading too much into it...Beverly as an individual would be entitled to have her own sexual preferences. That's a different from judging people based on their appearance.
ETA: NINJA!
ETA: NINJA!
I think "The Host" looks bad from a symbolic level but from a logical level it makes sense that if she isn't attracked to woman she wouldn't be into the idea of having a romance with someone inside a female body. Personally all of this would look much better if Crusher said that or better yet if Trek, actually had some gay characters on the show. Even pointing out that gay people still exist would be better than what Trek did. Also the fact that Crusher's reason about constant change just comes off as weak. It felt like they didn't want her to come off as a bigot but at the same time they didn't want to offend the bible belt by even talking about same sex situations.
Jason
Jason
THIS
All I can say in defense of the show in general on that point is that it was barely the '90s when that episode came out. Trek may try to project an idealized future, but it's always projecting from whenever it's actually being made.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
