• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

"We" do not all feel this way.

If my car blew up I would be upset because I couldn't get to work. Sorry, this is not how I treat a ship. I do not bond with a ship, or treat it as a character. And I know jack about Supernatural so for all I know "Baby" is a baby.

The only reason I hurt with the loss is because the characters I care about hurt, not because I miss the ship.

I meant 'we' as a general statement, since clearly not everyone feels as I do.

IDIC and all that. Or as my grandfather used to say, "Different strokes for different folks."

Also, Baby is the Impala on SUPERNATURAL.
 
I meant 'we' as a general statement, since clearly not everyone feels as I do.

IDIC and all that. Or as my grandfather used to say, "Different strokes for different folks."

Also, Baby is the Impala on SUPERNATURAL.
Oh, you meant the royal "we" ;)

Also, cars are dumb. I was recently at a car show with my wife and the amount of money people put in to those things is among the more irritating facets of the human race. In my humble opinion.

The biggest thing with ships is that they stand out. Can I identify them while watching the show, knowing whom is where at a given moment. A quick bad example is in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, where if you had not played any of the video games or kept up with some of the books you would not know who was the Republic ships and who was the Separatists. So, watching the space battle the only orientating point was Obi-Wan and Anakin's starfighters.

Ships are very useful for short hand storytelling, but for me to find a bond with a ship would be quite odd.
 
Perhaps the important point here is that both Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries did feel that way. They'd both been Air Force pilots in WWII and were familiar with the idea that machines could have "character" of their own, and designed the show accordingly.

No it's really not important to how I, personally, view the show. Plus..then they really didn't convey that very good.
The ship's a setting, not a character.
I mean I was a bit miffed that they destroyed the Enterprise-D in Generations, but that's because I liked the interior design.
 
The captain anthropomorphized the ship long before we did.
ATlKoZv.gif
 
Well, there weren't really that many other holograms on the ship for him to interact with, you know.

??? Once he could use the holodeck there were literally ALL the holograms for him to interct with.

If we were talking about, say, Barclay, a human who became over-immersed in the holodeck, it would make sense to critique the character interaction. But these were programs more like of the Doctor's own kind.

They were his own kind like a wax mannequin or a pixelated Mario on the TV screen is our own kind.
 
??? Once he could use the holodeck there were literally ALL the holograms for him to interct with.
Sorry, yes, I meant to add the operative words "like him". They were so obvious, I forgot them! (Editing.)

hey were his own kind like a wax mannequin or a pixelated Mario on the TV screen is our own kind.
Well, I said "more like" instead "exactly like." Right? Meaning, more like his own kind than carbon-based life forms.
 
Regarding sentient holograms, something to consider... if a sentient hologram is part and parcel of a ship's computer, like the Doctor pre-"Future's End", would setting the ship's autodestruct be considered murdering them?

Also, given that sentience can occur within it (as happens on TNG, DS9, and VOY), how does a ship's computer avoid becoming sentient?

Maybe those ships are characters after all...
 
But that also shows Data as the captain of the Enterprise-E, and Picard as a retired ambassador... we know that Countdown, while it may have been officially licensed, is not canon.
The Enterprise and her captain is mentioned only once in passing, never clarified if it was the -E or the -F, and Data seen in a photo on Geordi's desk in Picard: Countdown.
 
Also, given that sentience can occur within it (as happens on TNG, DS9, and VOY), how does a ship's computer avoid becoming sentient?

Maybe those ships are characters after all...

Considering that this never happened with a ship or ship's AI
outside of that Short Trek episode
...no.


The Millennium Falcon has more personality than Boba Fett exhibited in the original SW trilogy, so it was more of a character than he was.
I mean, yeah, Boba Fett has no personality...but neither does the Millenium Falcon. It's a means of transport. Or what personality traits would you ascribe to the Millenium Falcon? What relationships or motivations does it have? What are its fears or hopes?

Might as well say Leia's hair buns are a character.
 
The Enterprise and her captain is mentioned only once in passing, never clarified if it was the -E or the -F, and Data seen in a photo on Geordi's desk in Picard: Countdown.

Sorry, I conflated it with the Star Trek: Countdown prequel comic for the 2009 movie, which very definitely shows Data as Enterprise-E captain. I haven't read Picard: Countdown. My bad.
 
I agree with you, the ships are unimportant to me and I don't care about technical specs, but to each his/her own, eh?

:beer:

Yeah I agree, I didn't even know that the warp nacelles were the warp nacelles until reading this forum. I don't know how many decks the ships have, I don't know how fast the various warp speeds are supposed to be etc. etc. etc.
Because none of it matters to my enjoyment of the series. To me the ship is just a location, hence why I also tend to rank them by how much I like the interior sets.

But yeah, to each their own.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top