May have
Sorry. This one bothers me more than a little. Contractions like would've, could've, may've all shorten the word have. Anyone that uses of instead, not just you, I believe can do better in elocution.
Unpopular Trek opinions game
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
May have
Sorry. This one bothers me more than a little. Contractions like would've, could've, may've all shorten the word have. Anyone that uses of instead, not just you, I believe can do better in elocution.
Either Archer should have died or the NX-01 got destroyed in the S3 finale of ENT. Maybe both should have happened. And skip the time travel ending in the process.
I agree for the most part, but I don’t know how Ent-D would have looked in First Contact. I can see it fitting in INS and NEM, but I think Ent-E is integral to the aesthetic of FC.
I agree for the most part, but I don’t know how Ent-D would have looked in First Contact. I can see it fitting in INS and NEM, but I think Ent-E is integral to the aesthetic of FC.
Somewhat unpopular opinion;
Critics are OK to criticize Picard, Discovery, the new Star wars, 09 Trek series etc. whenever they see certain things they don't like.
If people keep happily consuming them, then studios and producers will blindly keep making things like that, thinking the story or idea is great or fool proof.
Then the bottom drops and hence, things like the last few Terminator movies, poorly received finales to very popular shows, box office flops ect.
But I mean only if the criticism is based on things like creative and production decision. .
This excludes the nutcase groups who keeps using "SJW" "feminist" terms and the like. They themselves need to be criticized.
Critics are OK to criticize Picard, Discovery, the new Star wars, 09 Trek series etc. whenever they see certain things they don't like.
If people keep happily consuming them, then studios and producers will blindly keep making things like that, thinking the story or idea is great or fool proof.
Then the bottom drops and hence, things like the last few Terminator movies, poorly received finales to very popular shows, box office flops ect.
But I mean only if the criticism is based on things like creative and production decision. .
This excludes the nutcase groups who keeps using "SJW" "feminist" terms and the like. They themselves need to be criticized.
Criticism is fine if it comes from a place of love. Criticism is fine if it doesn't involve personal attacks on humans, including production teams and actors.
My tolerance of criticism wears thin when it comes down to Star Trek never did X, or Trek always does X.
In my opinion Trek is a flexible platform which means not all Trek is for all fans.
My tolerance of criticism wears thin when it comes down to Star Trek never did X, or Trek always does X.
In my opinion Trek is a flexible platform which means not all Trek is for all fans.
Best of both worlds should of been saved for a film with both tos
Tng cast.
Riley should of been used in more episodes of tos.
Checkov should of been Brit with that hair of his or a 60s music historian.
Tng cast.
Riley should of been used in more episodes of tos.
Checkov should of been Brit with that hair of his or a 60s music historian.
1001001, I will play nice.
"Aquisition" (ENT) is probably one of the best Ferengi episodes.
Too on the nose. And while we know what from the '60s endured, they didn't in 1967-1969, so Chekov could've been referencing things no one watching today would know anything about (except for Baby Boomers). Or he could reference things they thought would take off, but didn't, which would make them look like they have egg on their face. Being timely is tricky. Especially when it comes to something that doesn't actually take place during that time.
If they had a character like that now, who's into the '60s, it would work since we have the benefit of hindsight.
Would be curious to know whether that's unpopular...
but they totally should have used Hugh to destroy the Borg.
If successful that would have saved untold billions of lives.
but they totally should have used Hugh to destroy the Borg.
If successful that would have saved untold billions of lives.
And what was the total population of the Borg, and what percentage of them would have died? Didn't I read some where that the Borg population was trillions?
So you seem to be saying that it is good to kill trillions to save billions.
Yeah, that was why I always hated the "I, Borg" episode. I thought the entire debate about whether or not it was moral to wipe out the Borg was asinine, as the Borg had basically been painted as Space Nazis squared up until that point.
The Borg don't have "population". They just have a gigantic zombie army of their mind controlled victims. An army they constantly use to mind-rape, mutilate and kill more victims.
And no justification, no pseudo-intellectual argument about "moral relativity" or any of that changes that. The Borg constantly violate others because it's literally their programming. It's like fighting a virus, not a culture.
Should we preserve the Corona virus, because there's so many more viruses than people?
Last edited:
And what about Species 8472? The Borg were important in order to drive them back into fluidic space.
If it hadn't been for Janeway antagonizing them by siding with the Borg Species 8472 would likely not be aggressive towards the Federation (as implied by In the Flesh)
And further, if it hadn't been for the Borg invading Fluidic Space and attacking them, Species 8472 would likely have stayed in their dimension.
Exactly. There is no need to have the Borg survive. Eliminating them benefits many.
Would it be wrong to drink Heinekin while watching an episode of Star Trek that focuses heavily on Spock?
A link for those not in the know.
And another link for the other side of the story.
But sadly, Heinekin's all I've got at the moment.
A link for those not in the know.
And another link for the other side of the story.
But sadly, Heinekin's all I've got at the moment.
Last edited:
Similar threads
