I've always viewed Scotty/Uhura the same way I view KS&M or Sulu&Chekov. They're long time friends that enjoy each other's company, and Uhura was acting under the influence of Sybok's mind-rape. Remember, Scotty declined her affections as "not in my condition...or yours."
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
But they were already dating at the beginning of the film.
Hallowed are the terry trek.
What dating? KS&M went on leave together, Sulu and Chekov went on leave togetrher. Were they dating?
SCOTT: Uhura, I thought you were on leave?
UHURA: And I thought we were supposed to be going together.
SCOTT: Oh I can't leave her when she needs me the most.
UHURA: I had a feeling you would say something like that. So I brought us ...dinner.
And some not even then
Icheb showed up after I stopped watching VOY, so I only saw him later on when I was binge-watched the series in full. My mind went, "Oh. He's this series' Wesley or Nog." In other words, an Academy-bound teenager. That's as much as I thought about him. When he briefly re-appears in Picard, I had two thoughts and only two thoughts:
1. "Wow, that's graphic!" But it could've been anyone and I still would've thought the same thing.
2. "Now I see why Seven's so pissed off!"
That's it. It gave Seven further motivation to be in the Fenris Rangers and provide "justice" to lawless space that didn't have any. It gave her a personal reason to want to be there, to make sure what happened to Icheb didn't happen to anyone else.
And before someone says anything, let me cut them off at the pass, I'll quote a character from Better Call Saul, "What you talk of is not justice, but revenge." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, but "Stardust City Rag" is pretty clearly intent to be a Space Western. Literally.
Icheb wasn't a main character, he was a supporting character. In this case, he's supporting Seven's backstory in PIC.
Jason Todd was beaten to death with a crowbar by the Joker. I didn't miss Jason that much (as interesting as having a delinquent Robin was), but I did love how it drove Batman afterwards.
1. "Wow, that's graphic!" But it could've been anyone and I still would've thought the same thing.
2. "Now I see why Seven's so pissed off!"
That's it. It gave Seven further motivation to be in the Fenris Rangers and provide "justice" to lawless space that didn't have any. It gave her a personal reason to want to be there, to make sure what happened to Icheb didn't happen to anyone else.
And before someone says anything, let me cut them off at the pass, I'll quote a character from Better Call Saul, "What you talk of is not justice, but revenge." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, but "Stardust City Rag" is pretty clearly intent to be a Space Western. Literally.
Icheb wasn't a main character, he was a supporting character. In this case, he's supporting Seven's backstory in PIC.
Jason Todd was beaten to death with a crowbar by the Joker. I didn't miss Jason that much (as interesting as having a delinquent Robin was), but I did love how it drove Batman afterwards.
Last edited:
That’s not an unusually long paragraph. If you don’t want to read it, don’t. I’m not going to present every thought in short simple sentences paragraphed for easy rebuttal and little else.
Apologies, but I don’t remember them. I typically only remember posters who are egregiously difficult. Everyone else I think of nebulously as average/awesome fellow Trekkies. I have no opinion of you, so you’re probably average/awesome.
Same.
And even then if it had not been "graphic" then they probably still wouldn't care.
In my opinion the objection over Icheb's death was due to how he died, not that he died at all. But, now we get big long paragraphs about how Voyager feels different because of this scene, and it's diminished and ruined because this hopeful character is now dead.
I trust that people felt the same about Rene Picard after "Family" when Generations came around, correct?
yeah, this is it for me. The brutality of his murder is...kinda fucked up.
If they had said he was working as an engineer at Utopia Planitia when the synthetics blew it up it would have been met with a shrug and “too bad, I guess everyone lost someone” type attitude.
But watching old Voyager episodes with him don’t feel any different now. I was pretty neutral on the character before. Still am.
He just...was. He served to assist in Seven's transition from full Borg drone to more human and in touch with her nurturing instincts. Had he not been in the supporting cast I'm sure they'd have passed his in-story purpose off on some other lead or supporting character.
Supplemental Controversial Opinion:
I think a lot of the critics of Picard season 3 aren't judging the show based on its choices or its overall quality. If they're being honest, they're annoyed that a lot of people, especially the people that disliked Discovery and a lot of "Nu Trek," loved a version of Star Trek that seemed to validate the idea of using the franchise's unaltered past and tacitly disproved all of the arguments and justifications that Trek needed to be reimagined to be popular with a modern audience. Reading between the lines, some seem to think that liking Picard season 3, or to support what Matalas wants to do going forward, is a tacit admission that all of those people who complained about ship designs not matching or looking close to what they did 30 years ago were right. And that engenders a lot of the "concern" about the excitement of season 3.
So they have to hide behind the critique of "nostalgia" for Picard while praising Strange New Worlds, a series that puts new coats of paint on the past by retelling stories through the lens of modern sensibilities, but they’re just that—coats of paint. It's not saying anything substantially new, doing anything substantially new, or breaking any new ground, since so far they refuse to create their own new corner of Trek and instead have to play with old toys (e.g., the Gorn, T'Pring, augments, etc.).
And, yes, the two themes of Picard season 3 and Strange New Worlds season 2 are diametrically opposed. Picard season 3 has Picard pointing to the Enterprise-D to say it's proof "the past matters," while season 2 Strange New Worlds has put forward the idea that the past will change based on what the showrunner feels the audience needs to be "aspirational."
There's room for both. Nostalgia and moving forward aren't mutually exclusive. It's about striking the right balance.
That's my perspective too. Not just with Star Trek but in general, since my life is half behind me and half ahead of me.
My hot take:
Strange New Worlds is about 100 times better than Picard. Season 3 of Picard started out well (as a huge TNG fan) but for the third time in a row, it completely choked on the dismount.
Also, I don't give a rat's ass about ship design or any of that.
Strange New Worlds is about 100 times better than Picard. Season 3 of Picard started out well (as a huge TNG fan) but for the third time in a row, it completely choked on the dismount.
Also, I don't give a rat's ass about ship design or any of that.
Controversial opinion: The story in Picard Season 3 wasn't very good. It started out extremely strong (agree with @1001001 here) and had some genuinely interesting character moments and movements. And then as the later episodes unfolded those moments were gradually left behind. It just didn't land it right.
Yes, I'll gripe about the use of ship designs or whatnot, but that's not my core issue. Ultimately, I wanted to be all in with characters and well the characters left me wanting.
And my hot take to your hot take: Season 2 of Strange New Worlds has been a big step down in quality from season 1.My hot take:
Strange New Worlds is about 100 times better than Picard. Season 3 of Picard started out well (as a huge TNG fan) but for the third time in a row, it completely choked on the dismount.
Also, I don't give a rat's ass about ship design or any of that.
I really liked season 1 when it was doing its own thing, and allowed its characters to exist in a Star Trek adventure that went somewhere new. Episodes like "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" was really great, and allowed the actors space to shine (i.e., the acting is really great in Strange New Worlds).
But when the series decides to navel gaze at Trek's past or introduce really dumb plot elements, and do it in ways where I'm just left wondering why it was even necessary for the story they're trying to tell, the show loses me.
It's completely unnecessary.
That is part of the appeal now. It's superfluous, incidental and offers a minor form of entertainment. At best a distraction.
Other than the second episode of the season (which I was expecting to be good), I agree. I've stopped watching.
SNW is now the fourth Star Trek series I've stopped watching during its run. Following VOY, ENT, and LD.
Similar threads
- Locked
