What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
No. They didn't. Those qualities I mentioned are the BASE qualities of those characters.
Sisko was pushed on such a massive edge that he commited those acts.
Janeway became an old jaded woman who hadnt seen a day of happiness for decades due to missing her family and crew and for being responsible for their deaths. These actions as bad and uncharacteristic as they are, are actions taken due to high levels of stress, betrayal, anxiety, etc..
Burnhams actions are just classic good Ole BASE Burnham
SO no. Sisko didn't teach me that nor did janeway
The war brought out what was already there. Sisko was a bigot, racist, a liar, abusive, unforgiving and absolutely positively committed horrendous war crimes.
Yes, Burnham committed an act of mutiny, but she was right in the end. She made a stand on principal to do what was morally, historically and ethically true. Per Picard the first duty of a Starfleet officer is to the truth.
In that capacity she was a better officer in service to the truth than the ones who you idolize
Brent Spiner should only play Data. Was honestly terrified during this season because we might be exposed to him playing all of his various characters non stop since I really feel he lacks restraint or subtlety. The reason that he's perfect for Data is that he has to repress his natural tendency to go over the top. That conflict between himself and the character works perfectly for Data. Have him being Lore or whoever once in awhile by all means, but only for a few mins and that's it.
Last edited:
Except Riker would make that suggestion. And back off immediately once the captain told him the decision isn't his.
It's obvious the writers wrote Burnham that way because they have extreme contempt to experienced authority. They think they know it all and write literal FANTASIES like STD where their contempt for experienced authority pays off. Only in their fantasies and dreams.
I did read it. I could easily use it tomorrow in class as an example of someone displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect to a T. It's all there--your presumption of superior capacities based on no facts in evidence, your dismissal of professionals as inferior and talentless, simply because they do not share YOUR vision of what Trek is...clear-cut. It's fine to disagree with the current people in charge. It's fine to be upset you're not getting what you would like. But your sweeping generalizations about the mental capacities of the people who choose differently from you, and of the people who like what is produced, all based on assertions without foundation--those are NOT fine. You have the right to express those ideas and thoughts--you're not entitled to anyone else finding them persuasive or reasonable. For that, you would need evidence. Not evidence of your displeasure at what is actually produced, but evidence that you could do better. Claiming you can is NOT evidence. And persuasive arguments are NEVER predicated on grossly exaggerated premises and insults.
Riker also participated in an illegal action, lied about it, covered it up, concealed the truth to his current commanding officer and ultimately only elected to finally come clean when he could no longer conceal the truth because it meant he and his current crew would ultimately likely die.
Riker also committed mutiny against the captain of the Pagh but did it for reasons he felt was right.
Do you see the double standard here?
I'll pay you double if you don't.
Indeed. The heroes of Star Trek did all the things Burnham did, but get excused.
Not what Riker did in this exact situation. He expressed his objection to his commanding officer on the IKS Pagh, was told he must follow orders, and at that point he began a plot to commit mutiny against his CO. He then commandeerd the Pagh and refused the lawful order of his CO to attack the Enterprise. (A Matter of Honor)
He also disobeyed a direct, clear and absolute order from his CO in following an illegal order from his old CO. (The Pegasus)
So do the TNG writers also have a problem with authority like you claim the Discovery writers do?
Now you see the brilliance of my plan.
You made an error. You said I provided no facts or evidence. I have. Your main error is assuming they don't share MY VISION of trek.
My vision of trek is irrelevant. It's what trek was known to be by the time the new shows or movies were being made is what matters.
These so called writers, didn't even respect this. They didn't respect their predecessors, nor respect what trek is about. Sure sometimes we slightly alter or modify things to suit the medium or thr audience of the time, but outright and downright making massive alterations and changes, neglecting Lore, and so many other major infractions, sorry, but that is them changing trek to THEIR VISION, which assumes they think they know better, a classic case of Dunning Kruger.
What I would do is respect and honor the eras of trek that built pretty much all the fanbase (beliebe me there aren't any new diehard fans of discovery and if they first saw discovery and went back to tng ds9 etc they're going to like the previous shows more), and make trek in the image of tng, ds9 etc. Not think I'm so much better I can change things due to my own arrogant vision.
Please read again. I know defeating someone by words may increase your credibility and reputation, but at least try to criticize me correctly.
Your OPINION of "what trek was known to be" is NOT a fact (you present no corroborating evidence, merely assertions of "knowing" what Trek should be like). Ergo, no error of the kind you describe was made on my part. Ergo, your assertions remain factually unfounded AND a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger at work.
Patrick Stewart played Patrick Stewart in this season and the first. (ok, there were a few moments that I felt he was Picard again, but they were few and far between. And I only watched a few episodes of the first) Marina Sirtis looked like she'd rather be in war torn Ukraine than be playing Troi again. Resting...... face. And I loved her as Troi in the original series
.
.
Even Gene wasn't sure what Trek was supposed to be between 1969 and 1989. He selectively head decanonized swaths of the original show, TAS and the movies and had wildly different ideas of how to portray humanity between Pike's and Kirk's time and that of Picard, steering away from temperamental human beings with hangups and prejudices to an almost septic humanity that could logarithm and slide rule its way to enlightenment and ultimate victory.
Gene wasn't always sure and he created this universe.
Gene wasn't always sure and he created this universe.
Exactly how was Sisko a bigot, racist, and abusive?!
This also runs entirely contrary to the spirit of Star Trek, and indeed what Gene Roddenberry set it out to be. You are making it sound like Star Trek is a moral story about the submission to authority and to subsume your principles in subservience to the obviously superior truth of a commanding officer.
That is NOT what Roddenberry would ever, EVER advocate in any sort of capacity. Every single Star Trek series has shown a complete demonstration that what is morally, historically and ethically right absolutely positively trumps authority and following orders 100% of the time.
I have no idea how this can be your takeaway from Star Trek and how the characters are supposed to act if you're as old and dedicated of a fan as you claim
He was dismissive of the Bajoran religious belief and felt uncomfortable meeting with Kai Opaka. He dismissed the Prophets as religious beings to the Bajorans and instead elected to view them as "wormhole aliens".
He didn't want Jake hanging out with Nog because he was a Ferengi and was openly disdainful of the Ferengi, barely concealing his concempt for Quark. It wasn't until well past Season 4 that Sisko began to evolve beyond this a bit.
He (while under the influence of his own trauma) blamed Picard, a victim of kidnapping, torture, coercion for something he had no control over and essentially blamed a victim for actions outside of his control. (This was repeated in Shaw, btw)
While Sisko did eventually see these character traits diminsh over the course of the series, he is, by far, the biggest piece of shit there ever was as a mainline Starfleet Captain outside of Lorca.
Now you may say that Siskos character arc means that his flaws gave opportunity for growth, and this is totally true, but it doesn't change that he was those things and he carried those traits through the entire series.
Indeed. Claiming Trek is one specific thing is missing the sandbox aspect.
Similar threads
- Locked
