Or, he's a real person that made a decision you disagree with...but many of us understand fully.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Or, he's a real person that made a decision you disagree with...but many of us understand fully.
It's easy to "understand" things about a fictional character when you know that you'll never be even close to a similar situation in real life.
I'll never be turned into a salamander by travelling too fast either. That's hardly the point. His motivation in that situation make perfect sense to me.
Because he's not a real person. he's a plot point, he's just there to vindicate Picard's arrogant assumption.
Picard: There's nothing that you can give people that they'll accept.
Riker: I'll prove you wrong by turning Weysley into a big dope, making a whore for Worf and giving Geordi what he's wanted all his life...
After Wesley and Worf turn down their "gifts"
Geordi: I really like having real eyes but since I am just a plot point I am going to quickly reject them because Picard can do no wrong!!!
Riker: How did you know?
Picard: Because I am the lead, what I say goes.
Last edited:
Just...wow.
Ok, nice arguing with you.
Exactly. Some perspectives are difficult to understand but that doesn't make them unrealistic.
I believe it does. If a fictional character cut off his hand for no reason and put it in a sandwich and started munching at it, you'd likely not understand his behavior but that would be nothing compared to deciding to remain blind for the rest of one's life...
Q is not related to Trelane, apart from a couple of superficial mannerisms shared. Or Trelane (with his green glowing progenitors) was faking it in an overly-elaborate way. Naah, they're nowhere near the same. Especially as Trelane got his history wrong (or the show took place in the 27th century, which would then allow Trelane's namedropping of Napoleon to be accurate since he's being a galactic peeping tom from 900 light years away... no worries, in a few weeks Khan says they're only sleeping for two centuries, which then makes TOS anachronistic in the opposite direction instead... there's no way to stitch that continuity together. Apart from fanon headcanon of the time travel episode after "Naked Time" causing an alteration of history that nobody would know because they're part of the timeline... which all seems a tad unintentional too... unless it wasn't, how's that for a controversy? 
)
)
As I have noted and repeated Geordi's rationale isn't "for no reason." It's because he believes use of Q's powers will cost his fellow officer something. He is not willing to sacrifice his fellow officer for his gain. The analogy is spurious, at best.
I'm not too bothered by the "900 years" figure since it was a geologist and not a historian who first made that suggestion. Kirk running with it just shows he wasn't historically well versed eitherQ is not related to Trelane, apart from a couple of superficial mannerisms shared. Or Trelane (with his green glowing progenitors) was faking it in an overly-elaborate way. Naah, they're nowhere near the same. Especially as Trelane got his history wrong (or the show took place in the 27th century, which would then allow Trelane's namedropping of Napoleon to be accurate since he's being a galactic peeping tom from 900 light years away... no worries, in a few weeks Khan says they're only sleeping for two centuries, which then makes TOS anachronistic in the opposite direction instead... there's no way to stitch that continuity together. Apart from fanon headcanon of the time travel episode after "Naked Time" causing an alteration of history that nobody would know because they're part of the timeline... which all seems a tad unintentional too... unless it wasn't, how's that for a controversy?
Insert "Damn it, man, I'm a_________" meme here.I'm not too bothered by the "900 years" figure since it was a geologist and not a historian who first made that suggestion. Kirk running with it just shows he wasn't historically well versed either
What's spurious is indulging the stupidity of a fictional character. Geordi is a cipher, he's nothing. He has no will, no desires, no ambition. He's a cardboard cut-out. He's like those mustache-twirling Villains of bad fiction. He has no substance. If he did he wouldn't be so cavalier about a lifetime of disability.
At this point it is agree to disagree. This cipher line has been repeated now and I see nothing being added. I don't agree on any point, and find him both relatable, understandable and despite my loathing of TNG and Q episodes specifically it makes more sense that Picard in that episode.
I agree... to disagree.
In my mind this shouldn't be a "controversial opinion" but I think Picard does things much better than the TNG Movies did.
Picard, IMO, is to TNG what the TOS Movies were to TOS.
Picard is even more honest about its use of the TNG cast. If they're not needed and don't have anything to do, they're not there. Unlike the TNG Movies where technically they were there, but -- when you get down to it -- they might as well have not been there at all, a lot of the time.
Picard, IMO, is to TNG what the TOS Movies were to TOS.
Picard is even more honest about its use of the TNG cast. If they're not needed and don't have anything to do, they're not there. Unlike the TNG Movies where technically they were there, but -- when you get down to it -- they might as well have not been there at all, a lot of the time.
OTE="Lord Garth, post: 13803664, member: 25139"]In my mind this shouldn't be a "controversial opinion" but I think Picard does things much better than the TNG Movies did.
Picard, IMO, is to TNG what the TOS Movies were to TOS.
Picard is even more honest about its use of the TNG cast. If they're not needed and don't have anything to do, they're not there. Unlike the TNG Movies where technically they were there, but -- when you get down to it -- they might as well have not been there at all, a lot of the time.[/QUOTE]
Yep. And Jean Luc like he appeared in that show is way more in line with TNG Picard than the one seen in the movies imho.
Action Picard was way more different to the character from TNG than what see saw in STP.
Picard, IMO, is to TNG what the TOS Movies were to TOS.
Picard is even more honest about its use of the TNG cast. If they're not needed and don't have anything to do, they're not there. Unlike the TNG Movies where technically they were there, but -- when you get down to it -- they might as well have not been there at all, a lot of the time.[/QUOTE]
Yep. And Jean Luc like he appeared in that show is way more in line with TNG Picard than the one seen in the movies imho.
Action Picard was way more different to the character from TNG than what see saw in STP.
Movies and series are very different mediums. The changes made to the characters were essentially because it was movies.
Yeah, but on the other hand, they drew a paycheck...
Similar threads
- Locked
