Transporter malfunction.
They had earlier made a point of telling us that thanks to the damage caused by the time travel and the power drain caused by the Borg Queen recharging herself, the transporter was barely functional at all. Seven described it as sub-computational. "For shit," was the term Rios used. Seven and Raffi got lucky. Rios was unlucky. simple as that.Why was Rios beamed down to a location in midair?
Seven and Raffi landed on the ground. Why not Rios? It makes no sense.![]()
I agree with some of that. However, they should not have called what happened with the Queen and Jurati assimilation then. It was more like a Vulcan mind meld. Think back to Picard mercy killing Ensign Lynch, who was begging him for help, in First Contact because "There was no way to help him." That's Borg assimilation. It's brutal, vicious, and very unpleasant. This euphoria they talked about this week. I don't buy it.
It was a sanctuary district. There was a sign in the background
Saw this on Facebook and it made me laugh:
![]()
That would put Khan into conflict with the Vulcans.
I get that, but I'd rather star trek stay relatively consistent instead of the timey wimey morass that Dr. Who became, reinvented on the whim of a show runner every few years. I don't expect it to work perfectly. And as far as pushing forward, it is all the way into the 32nd century now.
Sorry, I know this is a little bit off the topic of the thread, but it did come up here. I was just curious, for those of you who prefer to interpret Star Trek as being specifically in our future, what makes that an important element for you?
Just from my personal perspective, I watch and read a fair bit of fiction where the characters' history is not "our" history, but that doesn't prevent me from emotionally engaging with the characters or their stories. So it isn't a concern for me at all that the Star Trek characters' world did not experience the same history that our real world did, and I am still able to be heavily invested in their stories. But I am interested in hearing any thoughts about the opposite viewpoint.![]()
You are correct. My mistake. He deserves a name I think. Ensign Expendable?I think you're combining two different ensigns. Picard mercy killed an unnamed crewman who was begging for help, but shot an already assimilated Lynch in the holodeck.
Sorry, I know this is a little bit off the topic of the thread, but it did come up here. I was just curious, for those of you who prefer to interpret Star Trek as being specifically in our future, what makes that an important element for you?
FFS, the contrivance I am complaining about is that the transporter conveniently injured the one of the three that would best fit into the 21st century anti-immigrant story. Not complaining about taking on that story at all. (And as I said in another post clarifying that, if the ship had put down in the Antebellum South, then the writers would have injured Raffi with the transporter instead. Contrived.)
UESPA was around for at least 200 years. It existed in 2067 to launch Friendship One and was still around in 2267 during "Tomorrow Is Yesterday(TOS)." We have no onscreen canonical information for it after that episode.
How canon?
If everything on a background screen is canon, DS9 has some very interesting tenants...
7 and Raffi should NOT have been able to enter and leave that casually then. Do sanctuary district regulations change from city to city?
Then again, I'm sure Seven and Raffi are easily able to hack whatever defense/security measures these Sanctuary Districts have.
The "Take a picture" scene gave me Data/Geordi vibes.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.