What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
No, I just believe bad people should be treated like bad people.
That's all of humanity though. We are all bad to one degree or another.
The question is, how do we change and reward good behavior? That's why thematically Georgiou's stands out to me. Not because she's good; but because she's reflective of where humanity has been and can be and why it needs to change and needs positive reinforcement to change.
It really isn't. There are a lot of people out there who do their best to follow the law and contribute to society. They don't go out of their way to hurt other people or destroy others property. Of course, they are the one's that get pissed on the most.
We're not all sinners.
Disagree. Strongly.
You disagree with the idea that there are a lot of people out there who are simply trying to do the best they can? Society couldn't function if there wasn't.
No.
I'm sorry, we're not all sinners.
Disagree.
And no apology required, despite being an American. I do believe, strongly, that people are doing the best they can with what they got. I also believe, equally as strongly, that people have a dark side that can come out very quickly, and irrationally. I believe it because I watch in in my day to day work, and I see it out in society, both things being equally true.
You can punish the bad all you want. I don't believe that will bring about the evolution Star Trek claims to espouse.
Neither will excusing genocide.
Who's excusing it? If a character appearing in a Trek show commits a crime and they are not punished (Sisko, Kirk, Kor, Garak) is that excusing the behavior?
I don't see the connection.
Of course it is. You are saying it is okay to turn a blind eye to someone's crimes. Hell, in some instances, it comes across as celebrating the behavior. We're cheering on murderers and others who are accessories to their crimes.
Even then, your groups crimes are miniscule compared to Georgiou. I'm not even sure what crime Kirk committed.
Was it time travel, where there were no laws when he was alive? I'm really drawing a blank here.
The whole theft of the Enterprise thing. Not nearly enough charges brought against him for those actions.
The story arc where the supposedly irredeemable person turns out to be redeemable is a common trope of fiction. Don't see the problem.
Besides, were her acts actually crimes in the MU? Is it a fair expectation for those acts to follow cultural and moral rules she never lives under, i.e, the Prime Universe's? And should she be held accountable for those acts in the PU?
Anything she did after she got to the PU, sure, those before, I'm not so sure.
Besides, were her acts actually crimes in the MU? Is it a fair expectation for those acts to follow cultural and moral rules she never lives under, i.e, the Prime Universe's? And should she be held accountable for those acts in the PU?
Anything she did after she got to the PU, sure, those before, I'm not so sure.
Welll… I want to agree with you, basically because I want to watch Michelle Yeoh in Star Trek for as long as I can — but at least in the abstract, I have to say yeah, of course it’s fair for her past to follow her. If (as is the case) she was basically Space Hitler in the Space Third Reich, yes that’s something that — if she wasn’t a fictional character played by Michelle Yeoh having a blast — would be utterly unforgivable, unless maybe if she made a conscious effort to “make up for it”… which, really, she has in no way done, nor would I expect her to. She’s working for our guys now because it’s convenient, and Burnham’s rubbed off on her slightly, but not because she feels especially bad about who she used to be.
If Empress Georgiou were a real life person from an actually existing genocidal Terran Empire, she would absolutely deserve a terrible fate. But of course, she isn’t, and the actress who plays her is fun to watch. It’s the “because it’s fiction and they don’t exist” defense, which is admittedly a weak one.
This again.
No ethical leader is going to hand down severe charges on a man who committed a "crime" that ultimately placed him away from Earth with the man (and his crew) being insightful in determining the one way to stop what could have been the extinction event for all life on earth. Throwing more charges at the man who saved all life on earth (including that of his judges) would be the most outrageous display of ungrateful wrongheadedness in history.
Going overboard with what were--in the Kirk case--meaningless charges brought to someone who saved billions is the kind of misuse of authority that has led to anarchy at various points of history. It comes off as agenda-driven, rather than an interest in justice.
Thank you. That was marvelous! I almost didn't recognize Robert Stack. Loved having an early incompetent Colonel and Schultz!
Similar threads
- Locked
