I'm not talking about speeches, but it's clear by now that you're not interested in discussion.
That difference is irrelevant to my point.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I'm not talking about speeches, but it's clear by now that you're not interested in discussion.
That difference is irrelevant to my point.
Unless there is an emergency situation or a lack of power, or Picard ordering an officer with enhanced vision to look out a window.
The end result is minimal with possible benefits in unique situations. I see no reason to categorically declare it bad.
Is there really any practical purpose to illuminating the name and registry number? I have wondered about that since they started it with TMP.
Visual Identification if sensors can't get a lock or are down?
It also looks cool.
What emergency situation on a spaceship could be solved by peering out a window out of curiosity? I don’t count WoK because if the ship’s sensors are useless then a human eye isn’t going to be much use. And 10,000km off the starboard bow would make reliant a tiny spec.
And the key in the Picard example is *enhanced* vision. Laforge’s visor is likely not the norm for officers in starfleet. And if such an officer is going to go to a window there’s no need to have one on the front of the bridge. They can just go to a regular window.
It’s because star destroyers have windows that we’re having this debate at all.
Objection: speculation.
So many reasons why I love Deep Space Nine the most
Indeed. It's one thing to be optimistic, but one must temper that with realism, conflict and action. That's why the optimistic parts are best left to the beginning and end, and some measure of hope in the second act.
Yes: showing off.
It's helpful when a viewscreen gets that single pixel line down the middle. Very distracting. Better just to squint really hard.
Last edited:
G
Gonzo
Guest
Which is why I consider the storyline where Sisko and Garak trick the Romulans into the war as one of the best Star Trek has ever done alongside the Section 31 stuff with Bashir.
Simply because it is truly realistic.
You know, I had a thought about DS9 and Longinus' dislike for it.
Star Trek's utopic world was always something of a puzzle, really. How do you build and maintain such a world? Would you not need some measure of violence and deceit to do both? Would the empires around you not see your presence as an existential threat due to the reminder you represent to their own people that there is such a life possible for them? Would they then not seek to eliminate you by any means necessary to preserve their regime? And in that scenario, would you not need to defend against these aggressions, and does this not entail being less than nice or principled about it?
TOS and TNG always had hints that the Federation was defended through more shady means, while the population of the inner planets lived their happy lives, turning a blind eye to that. DS9 was just more open about it, because it was told from the point of view of the very people who provided that security, comfort and obliviousness. Sisko was put in that position because he was the man for the job, and when things got really rough he did what was necessary to safeguard the lives and standards of living of Federation citizens in a way Picard and Kirk never had to because they were usually away from those existential threats.
DS9 is not that different from its predecessors; it just shows us the cost that has to be paid for paradise.
Star Trek's utopic world was always something of a puzzle, really. How do you build and maintain such a world? Would you not need some measure of violence and deceit to do both? Would the empires around you not see your presence as an existential threat due to the reminder you represent to their own people that there is such a life possible for them? Would they then not seek to eliminate you by any means necessary to preserve their regime? And in that scenario, would you not need to defend against these aggressions, and does this not entail being less than nice or principled about it?
TOS and TNG always had hints that the Federation was defended through more shady means, while the population of the inner planets lived their happy lives, turning a blind eye to that. DS9 was just more open about it, because it was told from the point of view of the very people who provided that security, comfort and obliviousness. Sisko was put in that position because he was the man for the job, and when things got really rough he did what was necessary to safeguard the lives and standards of living of Federation citizens in a way Picard and Kirk never had to because they were usually away from those existential threats.
DS9 is not that different from its predecessors; it just shows us the cost that has to be paid for paradise.
Last edited:
G
Gonzo
Guest
There will always be a price to pay for freedom as it's never ever free, there will always be unpleasant tasks that needs to be done, Sloane tried to tell Bashir but I don't think he really understood.
I loved the storyline because unlike so much of Star Trek's stories this one had real weight to it.
No, just no.
I have put windows on my spaceships since I was 8 and building Legos.
What situation? Why, the situation you mocked with regards to the Reliant when sensors were inoperable. Kirk and Sulu picking up on a visual distortion by eye with the cloak. Among others. I can imagine more interesting and dramatic situations that could be fun to in a science fiction setting.
I'm personally a big fan of DS9, and I don't think it staked out quite the ethical margins Longinus argues, but...
No. Just no. What you propound here is the kind of thinking that belongs to strongmen, demagogues, and Republicans. It's Section 31 thinking. A society built on principles needs to uphold those principles, first and foremost. If it doesn't, it undermines its own foundations just as badly as any enemy ever could. That has always been at the heart of Star Trek, and always will. "The ends justify the means" has never been a philosophically justifiable proposition. And governments, or officials thereof, that forget that and step outside the lines, need to be held accountable.
(That's one of the reasons I always liked Babylon 5 even better than DS9. It also presented a morally complicated, politically realistic universe... but the way it wrapped up the Earth Alliance arc was all about holding abuses of power to account, not rationalizing them.)
But Sloane was wrong. The story made that plain in every possible way short of tatooing it on his forehead. His ethics were indefensible. He was a man who had a hammer and therefore saw every problem as a nail.
Last edited:
As for DSC... the point here is that one reason its affirmation of principles at the end rings so hollow is that those in power — Cornwell, Sarek, and other official unnamed but alluded to — were ready to toss those principles aside and commit the UFP version of war crimes... indeed, did commit them, by conspiring with a known war criminal and putting her in command of a critical ship and mission, the final twist notwithstanding — and they faced no consequences whatsoever. On the contrary, they were happily handing out medals to people for defending the principles they'd abandoned. The hypocrisy was kind of galling.
Because of the off-topic stuff? I say it should just be the tagline of the BBS
"TrekBBS: It's going off-topic" or something like that.
"USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?" Since the Enterprise isn't just a ship, but an ideal, and a representation of Trek as a whole... yeah, renaming seems fair.
It's not like we're 7000 posts into this thread, right?
Didn't they have a scene in STD first episode where they used that telescope to look at the torch beacon because their sensors couldn't lock on?
Similar threads
