You mean, like Admiral Vance in DISCO?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
You mean, like Admiral Vance in DISCO?
I just realized something... DISCO could have had a GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE CITY connection.
He could have been named Admiral Lance Vance, and played by Philip Michael Thomas.
Even better if he did the 'Lance Vance Dance'...
He could have been named Admiral Lance Vance, and played by Philip Michael Thomas.
Even better if he did the 'Lance Vance Dance'...
There was, but for some reason they never let Sisko officially get above the rank of Captain, and it took years before they even let him have that.
I suspct there are some aspects of Starfleet teminology which do not translate well into 20th century or early 21st century English.
Someone might suspect that much of the technobabble used in TNG era producitons is actually pseudo scientific terminaology invented by the creators of those producitons to substitude for the actal words spoken by the chracters, because those actual words used seem totally alien to 20th century people. Possibly a lot of scientific and technological terminology in the 23rd and 24th centuries are words from alien languages, languages of societies more advanced than Earth, adopted into future English.
Thus a sentence of real TNG techonologcal talk might inlcude some words from Vulcan, Tellarite, Denobulan, etc. languages which would seem like gibbersh to 20th century English speakers and so the creators of TNG era producitons replace those words with more or less meaningless but scientitfic sounding technobabbel.words.
And I have sometimes noted what seems like incorrect use of the word galaxy in Star Trek. It is possible that Starfleet English usues single words to express different scales of spee between a star system and a galaxy. Thus there might single words for concepts like "first order galactic region", "second order galactic region", "third order galactic region", and so on. So possbibly the creators of various productions, for lack of a suitable single 20th century English word, translated such future words or phrases incorrectly as "galaxy".
This would would explain why Kor spoke of Klngon victory resultng in domination of "the galaxy" for ten thousand years in "Errand of Mercy".
And this would explain mentions of the center of the galaxy, reached after short voyages seemingly lasting mere hours or days in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu":and in In Star trek V: The Final Frontier (1989.
Even though starships in the era of TNG are supposed to be much faster than starships in the era of TOS, several episodes establish their speeds are roughly on the order of about 1,000 times the speed of light. At such speeds a round trip to the galactic center would take about 50 years and a one way trip to the far edge of the galactic disc would take about 75 years.
Those travel times and speeds are vital to the basic plots of two entire seriies, DS9 and Voyager.
And the thoought has occurred to me that the worlds reached in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" and Star trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) might not be at the central point of the Millky Way Galaxy, nor even within the central bulge of the galaxy which is thousnds of light years wide, but much closer to Earth.
Possibly one of them might be at the center of the local "First Order Region of the Galaxy" and another might be at the center of the local "Second Order Region of the Galaxy", and those concepts might have been mistranslated into 20th century English as "the center of the galaxy" in both cases.
Thus I suspect that in some cases "The galaxy" is a mistranslation of a phrase or word meaning a local region of the galaxy.
And thusin my opinion there is no reason to use the word "flagship" to describe a starship that wasn't the naval type of flagship, as was done in a few TNG episodes. The Enterprise D could have the "flagship" strship in the sense of the "showpiece" starship when it was used on diplomatic errands within known space. But in other episodes it was exploring distance space and couldn't then be the "special" starship the Federation.
And it makes no sense for Siko to command a fleet of 600 warships in battle with the rank of only captain. According to 20th century naval practices there should have been so many admirals of different ranks commanding smaller parts of the fleet tthat Sisko should have been something like a six pip admiral..
So Siko should have been given a temperorary wartime promotion to a high admiral rank before he was allowed to command 600 warhips in battle. I note that being given temporary promtions to one pip admiral, two pip admiral, and so on up to about five or six pip admiral during war would hardly be unprecidented. That would be rapid promotion by five or six grades in wartime.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a captain in the United States army when he received temporary wartime promotions to major and lieutenant colonel in a separate organization, the National army, in 1918. Eisenhower was discharged fromthe National army in 1920 and remained a captain in the United States Army. Eissenhower was promoted to major in 1924 and Lieutenant colonel in 1936. Eisenhower had emporary promotion to colonel ithe Army of the United States in 1941 and rapdily rose to (four star) general in the Army of the the United States in 1943 while still a lieutenant coloneli n the United States Army. He was promoted to five star General of the Army in the Army of the United States in 1944, and in the United States Army in 1945.
Eisenhower was promoted five grades in two years from 1941 to 1943, and six grades in three years from 1941 to 1944.
George Armstong Custer graduated from West Point and was commissioned a second leiutenent in the United States Army on 24 June, 1861. He rose rapidly in rank in the United States Volunteers during the Civil War. Custer was promoted to first lieutenant in the United States Army 17 July 1962, and on 29 June 1863 was appointed brigadier general in the United Sttes Volunteers, five grades higher, after only two years. By the end of the war Custer was a captain in the United States Army and on 15 April 1865 he was promoted major general in the United States Volunteers. Custer advanced six grades in four years.
With such historical examples, it wouldn't be especiallly unbelievable in a science fiction series for someone to be promoted five or six grades from a captain to a high ranking admiral during a few years in wartime.
Last edited:
I came to a conclusion today: I've been cruising YouTube Comments Sections and, strange it sounds, it looks like Picard has replaced Discovery as the most hated Star Trek series.
Yeah, you'll still get the "STD Sucks!" type of comments, but I can tell it's more rote and their hearts aren't in it anymore. They say it like they say "Five is the worst Star Trek movie!" They're saying it out of habit more than anything else. But I see a lot more genuine fire and ire aimed at Picard now.
Yeah, you'll still get the "STD Sucks!" type of comments, but I can tell it's more rote and their hearts aren't in it anymore. They say it like they say "Five is the worst Star Trek movie!" They're saying it out of habit more than anything else. But I see a lot more genuine fire and ire aimed at Picard now.
PIC has been the most disappointing. It had a higher distance to fall and boy, has it.
Yeah that’s a better way of putting it. It’s not “bad” necessarily, just so far off from what my expectations were…
I'm still more disappointed by Voyager. Even TNG, unappealing as it could be, managed to get my attention some time. Voyager just...yeah, it fell further for me because I expected a lot more.
Picard I walked in to with no expectations, save for more Romulans. Well, I managed to get that.
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
DIS used to be my least favourite, and I was positively surprised by PIC S1. I didn't think it was great, but fairly enjoyable for the most part, and so it ranked higher on my personal list than DIS. PIC S2 however was such a dumpster fire that it dragged the average of PIC below the average of DIS.
So even though PIC S1 is my favourite season between both shows, in whole/on average PIC is now the worst Trek show for me.
So even though PIC S1 is my favourite season between both shows, in whole/on average PIC is now the worst Trek show for me.
DSC is still my least favorite series but it didn't have as far to decline after premiering and, honestly, has only been getting better for the most part since the series relocated to the 32nd century. Season 4 has been my favorite to date and had the best resolution.
PIC's Season 1 saves it from DSC territory but the sophomore season just disappointed on so many levels and dragged the alternate timeline angle out over too many episodes with far too many filler scenes that added little or nothing. DSC may have far more episodes that have let me down but PIC started out with the highest level of personal excitement of any Trek series or movie in nearly twenty years. And proceeded to squander a lot of it.
PIC's Season 1 saves it from DSC territory but the sophomore season just disappointed on so many levels and dragged the alternate timeline angle out over too many episodes with far too many filler scenes that added little or nothing. DSC may have far more episodes that have let me down but PIC started out with the highest level of personal excitement of any Trek series or movie in nearly twenty years. And proceeded to squander a lot of it.
I've said some negative things about DSC on here so I want to clarify my controversial opinion:
DSC is fine TV show, but it's not Trek. And it, along side, PIC, SNW, and assorted, won't be until and unless they say its in an alternate timeline.
DSC is fine TV show, but it's not Trek. And it, along side, PIC, SNW, and assorted, won't be until and unless they say its in an alternate timeline.
I say the same thing about TNG.
While I have complained a lot about Discovery, it's because even when it fails, it fails in interesting ways. It makes it more interesting than say most of Voyager or the first two seasons of Enterprise, which mostly failed by being uncreative and boring instead.
I'd rather have a show which takes big risks and totally effs some things up than a show that plays it safe and gives us beige.
I'd rather have a show which takes big risks and totally effs some things up than a show that plays it safe and gives us beige.
The problem with this line of thought is that they're not going to say it's an Alternate Timeline. Especially not over five years in. The time to have done that was in 2017. But now, what's done has been done. Unless whoever eventually replaces Alex Kurtzman says his Star Trek doesn't count, but I don't see that happening any more than Alex Kurtzman saying Rick Berman's Star Trek doesn't count. They won't do it. Instead, they'll build on what's come before, warts and all, while making some changes and retcons along the way.
I make up my own mind on these things. I like SNW, not as much as DSC, but I still like it. I just see it as more like a reboot than a prequel. So I treat it like a reboot whether Paramount says it is or not.
With DSC, I treat the first two seasons like a visual reboot... and from the third season on? I'm not entirely convinced that one day they won't just say the Disco Future is just a Possible Future. Especially if they don't keep going with the 32nd Century after that series.
I can easily see PIC following the TNG Movies. This series is the least problematic of the three, continuity-wise. Anyone who says PIC isn't in continuity with TNG is just saying so because they don't like the series. It's really that simple. If they liked it, they'd have no problem saying it was the same continuity.
Last edited:
Disruptors > Phasers
I just find them more satisfying
I just find them more satisfying
Here are some (more) of mine:
- I do not like TNG. I find most of it dated, boring, or cringeworthy. I can count on my fingers the number of episodes of TNG I legitimately enjoy and, with the exception of Yesterday's Enterprise, they're all Data centric.
- I do not like Jean-Luc Picard. The man has a stick a meter long and half a meter thick up his butt. If I had the option to serve under him, I would genuinely refuse.
- PIC is the worst thing to happen to Star Trek since "Before Dishonor" by Peter David.
- Seven of Nine and Janeway had a much better chemistry and a much better written relationship than Chakotay and Janeway ever did. You change not a single scene or line of dialogue of the show, had Voyager aired 10-15 years later (or had Rick Bermann not been involved), after that scene at the end of "The Voyager Conspiracy" when Janeway kneels before Seven and they stare lovingly into each other's eyes, the two would have kissed. Don't @ me. See that hill over there? That's me dead on it.
Data is overrated to such a degree that not even Deep Thought could quantify it.
Data sort of personifies the new word/usage "cringe."
Just. Not. Funny.
Stilted dialog all around him too.
But it (TNG) seemed pretty good when it was on.
I've never really like-liked TNG. (I only saw the last couple years first-run on VHS tapes that included new DS9's.
When in a hotel flipping channels and BBC America has a TNG on, I don't stop to watch.
OTOH we are rewatching VOY, flawed and stilted as it may be. Always just liked it better. Is that controversial? I am generally not a controversial fellow.
Just. Not. Funny.
Stilted dialog all around him too.
But it (TNG) seemed pretty good when it was on.
I've never really like-liked TNG. (I only saw the last couple years first-run on VHS tapes that included new DS9's.
When in a hotel flipping channels and BBC America has a TNG on, I don't stop to watch.
OTOH we are rewatching VOY, flawed and stilted as it may be. Always just liked it better. Is that controversial? I am generally not a controversial fellow.
I don't particularly like the series, but I'm willing to admit it's in continuity, if it didn't have a display of the DSC Enterprise.
(Reference)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
