What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[IAmAParrot]

First off, he was not reluctant to meet Opaka. He met with her pretty much right when that Vedek came to him and said, "It is time." When he became known as the 'emissary', of course he would want to distance himself from that role... as a Starfleet officer, he is not supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of another world. If he actively did things in the role as emissary, he would very much be affecting Bajor. That's wielding a massive amount of power because, let's be real here, super religious people tend to be led like sheep when someone they view as a religious icon says anything. No one should wield that kind of power, and Sisko actively tried to avoid having that power. (He later did accept the role, but he only interfered once... in "RAPTURE".)

Second, he was never dismissive abount the Bajoran belief. He respected that it existed, but he wasn't going to be a follower. It IS possible to not agree with someone's beliefs in certain things and actually NOT be a member of the 'other side'. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the population doesn't seem to understand that notion.

Third, he didn't want Nog around Jake at first because the first thing that happened when Sisko arrived on DS9, Nog got arrested for stealing. Would you want YOUR child hanging around a criminal?

Fourth, while he did say that Ferengi and humans didn't have a lot in common, he DID change his mind about that fairly quickly. We see the first hint of that in "THE NAGUS" when he watched Jake teach him to read. That was in season 1, by the way. And he endorsed Nog's Academy entrance, which was season 3. If I understand math correctly, the numbers 1 and 3 come before 4. Hence, this was before season 4.

Fifth, he had disdain for Quark because Quark had caused trouble on DS9 multiple times.


"BABEL" - he got the disease spread everywhere because he broke into quarters to use the replicator.

"THE PASSENGER" - he brought mercenaries to help steal a Federation tanker.

"MOVE ALONG HOME" - he cheated the Wadi, and they went through the whole ordeal due to this.

"VORTEX" - he tried to double dip with Croden and got the Miradorn twin killed.

"THE SIEGE" - he was selling seats on evacuation runabouts that were meant for civilians to get out to safety.

"INVASIVE PROCEDURES" - he bypassed security sensors and Verad's group nearly got Jadzia killed.

There are other examples, but I think you get the idea why Quark was not at the top of his Christmas list.

Sixth, Picard - he represented the biggest loss in his life, Jennifer's death. You're going to have residual feelings for a while after that. You can't just shut off those feelings. Especially at that time, when they didn't know as much about the Borg and what they do to the assimilated. He got past that grief and anguish by the end of the pilot episode.


Did Sisko have flaws? Absolutely. Did he grow past many of them? Definitely. Was he a layered captain? BY FAR, he was the most layered captain because he had flaws, and got past them. He was human, and humans make mistakes and do the best they can with what life throws at them.

Calling Benjamin Sisko a piece of shit is like saying ALL humans are pieces of shit. And while a lot of people today are because they don't try to grow and learn, Sisko NEVER belonged in that category.

Finally someone who has common sense and logic. Took the words right out of my mouth, well in this case my mind. I almost thought I wrote this masterpiece and had just forgotten about it.

 

[IAmAParrot]

It happens. I just read your post, and felt the need to defend Sisko. He's my favorite captain, and holds a special place in my heart. (A great example of leadership and, more importantly, fatherhood.)

The emissary. Man when I watch that, and the prophets tell him "you exist here" at the scene of Jennifer's death, I just can't help it. Tears flow so quickly at that scene. I know what sisko is going throigh in that scene, unfortunately . The emissary is so beautiful and by far the best pilot during Berman trek, caretaker being second. Surprisingly. Enterprise third, and only then tng.

 

[at Quark's]

Yeah. Over the top absurdist escapism that I cannot stand. Never got through a single film despite efforts of friends.

Real world history studies of spies is far more interesting.

I cannot watch Bond movies as ordinary movies myself, only when I consciously decide to go with the over-the-top-absurdism and enjoy it for what it is, while it plays. Afterwards, I'll return my internal settings to 'regular'

 

[Ovation]

And for this heroic defense of the status quo and paramount, they will now call you begging to be your friend. They'll pay you now and invite you to all their parties and social gatherings. Congrats. Defending them has payed off for you.

Oh wait..never mind.

Remember I'm calling peolle outside this forum arrogant or Dunning Kruger, etc. Your here defending them and insulting me. I thought there was a rule against that.

Oh and yes here's what trek is. Trek is about an enlightened humanity. It's about exploration, and yes sometimes self defense involves war. But overall, it's about exploring the final Frontier, growing, learning. Making amicable first contact. It's about honor, loyalty, trust, the truth, etc. Which basically no part of STD a literal STD btw, has been or is. Pic s1 or 2 were awful. Sometimes it's not just what trek is, but also what the established trek Lore is. For example the Q don't die, yet they do in pic s2? Again, no Berman Era writer would EVER conceive of this stupid, incomprehensible plot point. They also wouldn't waste time making season long arcs of yet another "enemy", who's vapid, is evil just because. Etc. The writers today are bad, and the problem with making an entire season of just one chitty bad guy/villain/whatever, is that if you're a terrible talentless writer, and can't write a proper story or characters even if your families lives depended on it, then all you will accomplish is wasting an entire seasons worth of episodes, and $50 million of money (assuming a conservative average of $5mm per episode), creating pure trash, that wont even bring profit. But fear not, most people these days are hired by like minded friends or people who don't know what they're doing. They're not going to fire failures (unless they fail very very bad). It would mean the end of like over 90% or more of the workforce, by setting a standard that making mistakes or failing is unacceptable no matter what, youd suddenly see over 90% of people jobless not just at paramount but in thr whole country. Of course they don't care and even promote failures. It's just a method to set the standard that despite being failures, they will continue to hire and promote each other, and then demand an even longer renewed contact, and even more money. I see mistakes every day now at least 30 times a day, whereas in 1995, mistakes, anywhere, by people who were employed, was EXTREMELY rare and not tolerated. Today these young hires can't make an advertisement without spelling mistakes, factual errors, and so much more. I see mistakes non stop now whereas I rarely would 15-20 years ago and prior

Yawn.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I think despite its general reputation for being beige, 90s and a little dull, that the overall design aesthetic of TNG, more so in later seasons, is timeless.

 

[vulcancicada]

This.

If I accidentally get merged with someone else to create a new person, please do everything you can to bring me back, no matter what that new person tells you.

If this happens to me, do not bring me back!

 

[1001001]

And for this heroic defense of the status quo and paramount, they will now call you begging to be your friend. They'll pay you now and invite you to all their parties and social gatherings. Congrats. Defending them has payed off for you.

Oh wait..never mind.

Remember I'm calling peolle outside this forum arrogant or Dunning Kruger, etc. Your here defending them and insulting me. I thought there was a rule against that.

Oh and yes here's what trek is. Trek is about an enlightened humanity. It's about exploration, and yes sometimes self defense involves war. But overall, it's about exploring the final Frontier, growing, learning. Making amicable first contact. It's about honor, loyalty, trust, the truth, etc. Which basically no part of STD a literal STD btw, has been or is. Pic s1 or 2 were awful. Sometimes it's not just what trek is, but also what the established trek Lore is. For example the Q don't die, yet they do in pic s2? Again, no Berman Era writer would EVER conceive of this stupid, incomprehensible plot point. They also wouldn't waste time making season long arcs of yet another "enemy", who's vapid, is evil just because. Etc. The writers today are bad, and the problem with making an entire season of just one chitty bad guy/villain/whatever, is that if you're a terrible talentless writer, and can't write a proper story or characters even if your families lives depended on it, then all you will accomplish is wasting an entire seasons worth of episodes, and $50 million of money (assuming a conservative average of $5mm per episode), creating pure trash, that wont even bring profit. But fear not, most people these days are hired by like minded friends or people who don't know what they're doing. They're not going to fire failures (unless they fail very very bad). It would mean the end of like over 90% or more of the workforce, by setting a standard that making mistakes or failing is unacceptable no matter what, youd suddenly see over 90% of people jobless not just at paramount but in thr whole country. Of course they don't care and even promote failures. It's just a method to set the standard that despite being failures, they will continue to hire and promote each other, and then demand an even longer renewed contact, and even more money. I see mistakes every day now at least 30 times a day, whereas in 1995, mistakes, anywhere, by people who were employed, was EXTREMELY rare and not tolerated. Today these young hires can't make an advertisement without spelling mistakes, factual errors, and so much more. I see mistakes non stop now whereas I rarely would 15-20 years ago and prior

Okay.

We're getting many complaints about your posting. Saying the same thing over and over. Posting multiple times in a row (like here). The negativity and unhinged anger at people you don't even know is really affecting the forum. It's too much.

Warning for spamming. Comments to PM.

 

[1001001]

So why did you did you feel the need to respond to him in front of the rest of us like this? Sounds like you were trying to do him a favour from what you've said to me, but u didn't. Billy bullshiner

Billy Bullshiner?

That's enough of that.

 

[Orphalesion]

It's still history. Guarantee you some some bi or whatever guys and girls love it too. For me, it has nothing to do with sexuality. It's just gas. And I recognize it as gas.

I'm sorry I don't quite understand what you mean by the gas bit (English is not my native language) Do you mean the sex stuff is the "fuel" that allows the rest of the movie to go?

But as I said, I don't meant in a degeratory way when I say Bond is a hetero male fantasy. I don't even mean the attractive women or stuff by themselves. But from what I understand is that with his whole persona Bond is an escapism character who speaks primarily to many hetero men and is designed to do so.

There's just nothing in there for me.

 

[Racefuel]

In the Pegasus, pressman wasn't just an old CO, he was an Admiral, Riker couldn't refuse. .

In Starfleet and IRL you’re under no obligation to follow an illegal order. Everything Pressman did was illegal, Riker knew it and only broke at the very end when it was clear his own ass was going to die for it.

And these are all fantasy characters, Star Trek isn’t real. None of this is real. You act like TNG, DS9 and such was real life but Discovery is fantasy when it’s all the same thing. All of the TNG era heroes aren’t wrong because they’re not written to be wrong, same as discovery characters yet I don’t see you hand waving off those characters as Mary Sues.

Burnham doesn’t just skate by with no consequences of her actions. I feel like you didn’t watch anything more than the first maybe two episodes of Discovery and then just started parroting what other people have said

 

[Cortez]

He's literally the only Bond I can stand.

Doesn't have the charm. The charisma. Fantastic actor but nah, not in the same league as some of the other lads. Plus (and I know this is daft) he's not athletic. It's very obvious. Watch him run. Action stars should look athletic.

 

[Sci]

Doesn't have the charm. The charisma. Fantastic actor but nah, not in the same league as some of the other lads. Plus (and I know this is daft) he's not athletic. It's very obvious. Watch him run. Action stars should look athletic.

All I can tell you is, literally every other Bond bores me to tears or gets on my nerves in a bad way.

 

[Cortez]

All I can tell you is, literally every other Bond bores me to tears or gets on my nerves in a bad way.

Connery is the only movie star that played the rol. Perfect movie star Bond but he hated the role after the first few, and Dalton is the most faithful to Flemings Bonds. A proper boozing, self hating killer. Curt. I find Craig very dull.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Craig's Bond will age very poorly, I think. The character was a huge regression in terms of the machismo and misogynistic aspects of the character from the very little progress that was made during Brosnan's run, yet most of his tenure occurred post metoo.

 

[Cortez]

Craig's Bond will age very poorly, I think. The character was a huge regression in terms of the machismo and misogynistic aspects of the character from the very little progress that was made during Brosnan's run, yet most of his tenure occurred post metoo.

The next Bond shouldn't be set in modern times. Should take place back in post war England. Far more interesting.

 

[Cortez]

Far more meat to get stuck in to

 

[fireproof78]

All I can tell you is, literally every other Bond bores me to tears or gets on my nerves in a bad way.

Yeah. I've tried different films and roll my eyes. Stupid.

 

[cooleddie74]

Some Bond films I absolutely adore. A few I skip like a small child jumping over a mud puddle to get to the cahdy store. I like Daniel Craig well enough but find at best three of his five Bond movies to be to my liking and only two of those are better than good.

 

[XCV330]

Some Bond films I absolutely adore. A few I skip like a small child jumping over a mud puddle to get to the cahdy store. I like Daniel Craig well enough but find at best three of his five Bond movies to be to my liking and only two of those are better than good.

I consider myself a pretty big Bond fan, I even shamefully love NSNA, and yet Golden Eye is the only Brosnan one I can remember watching all the way through.

 

[cooleddie74]

Brosnan's got worse with each successive film. The only Bond actor who saw diminishing returns across his entire time in the role.