Unpopular Trek opinions game
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
Considering the high percentage of stupid admirals, probably not.
Must be the position. I bet they were perfectly capable back when they were captains.
Hence Kirk's warning to Picard in ST:GEN....
Yes. Hence my intense distrust of 007.Seven ate nine?
That's funny...
009 was a clown.
I think they got booted upstairs to the bureaucracy of the admirals' offices because they were stooopid.
Kor
That scene has never sat well with me. Kirk didn't know Picard, so for all he knew, Picard was the sort of man who would be happier in the Admiralty. I understand it was more an expression of his own regret, but even so, not everyone is wired the same, and Kirk should know that.Hence Kirk's warning to Picard in ST:GEN....
So was 007 in that movie.
Picard becoming an admiral does not seem out of character at all.
Especially if, as the teaser suggested, he was commanding a fleet.
When Kirk was an admiral, he basically had a desk job. He wasn't out in the field like Picard supposedly was. So that's one of the reasons Kirk was miserable as a flag officer. If Kirk could have commanded a battle group or something like that, he wouldn't have resisted.
I don't know. We never saw Kirk command a battle group or fleet that I can recall. Maybe Kirk becoming Admiral was just an example of the Peter Principle - a person will be promoted to the point of their own incompetence. His best destiny was to be a starship captain. But Picard was commanding small fleets as a captain. Hard to argue that the captain's chair commanding a single ship was the place where he could best "make a difference", like Kirk was trying to tell him.
Unpopular Opinion: When Picard talks about "honoring" the lives of the people that he "cannot" save. It was one of the most horrible lines said by a so-called good guy in the franchise. I mean it's akin to a torturer "honoring" the person that he's about to torture to death, IOW pure fascism. The only excuse is that this statement has been concocted by shortsighted writers who don't really measure the implications of their words or even care about them. The prime directive started as an honest effort to protect weak aliens against the manipulations and exploitations of unscrupulous captains, but it's become an excuse to let people die without lifting a finger, IOW a caricatural perversion of its initial intent.
I am kinda with you there.
I always thought I was the odd ducky out as I liked INS. I felt it, out of all the TNG films, captured the group dynamic of the 7 principle cast members, working as a team, a family, together, the best.
Kirk had a senior crew that sacrificed their careers (only Sulu escaped) to follow him around for 30 years, he had an ego to boost
Hard disagree. TNG took place 80 years after TOS, specifically. There's been a hell of a lot more continuity since then, and I think this "the future is less constricted" idea (which I don't think is an unpopular opinion) just doesn't hold water. Sure, you may have to keep to the threads of some major characters, but there's a lot less continuity to worry about in the TOS era, and what there is, contradicts.
New hot take: The Kelvin films are, *on average*, more entertaining than the TNG films.
Last edited:
Hey, that's nothing. Look at Archer's crew allegedly ten years in the future. They're almost identical. Not one of them got a promotion (or a little grey in their hair) during all that time! And it really feels like it's just months at most after the previous episode. These are the less evolving people I've ever seen. Talk about sloppy work!!
Status quo...keep the status quo, Jean-Luc.
I would agree with that, to the point that I would rather revisit all of the Kelvin films vs. most of the TNG films, with First Contact being the outlier, but only by a thin margin. It might beat out Beyond.
Similar threads
