• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

The whole theft of the Enterprise thing. Not nearly enough charges brought against him for those actions.

Well, he saved a Starfleet officer who had died, kept the Genesis plans from a rogue Klingon commander, saved the planet Earth from destruction and exposed how poor Starfleet Security was.

Welll… I want to agree with you, basically because I want to watch Michelle Yeoh in Star Trek for as long as I can

Yeoh is a fantastic actor, I wish her role in the franchise wasn't drenched in "ick".
 
Many legal systems do when sentencing.

Hence the reason any just legal system will reduce charges based not only on the factors you mentioned, but the person's intent, as seen in TVH. Anyone claiming the charges against Kirk were too "lenient" either has a thing for wanting to punish one character, or supports legal systems overstepping the bounds of objective sentencing (i.e. overcharging)--the latter one of the reasons the American criminal justice system has been and continues to be a brutal failure.
 
Crimes are not ‘just’ crimes. To claim it’s as black and white as that is utterly infantile.

There are circumstances to consider when sentencing. Background, history and character…

It’s far more nuanced than a blasé statement like ‘crimes are crimes’.

Goodness me. I expected better of you, Fireproof.
 
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.
I agree. This is my stance. It's fiction. She's not real. We didn't see any of what she did, we don't know the context, and most people in the Mirror Universe are evil. I can't get as worked up about fictional characters getting killed when most of them are "the bad guys". I just can't. The dramatic rules are different when it's "bad guys vs. bad guys" instead of "good guys vs. bad guys". Everyone who was united against the Terrans in the TOS Era turned to be just as bad in the DS9 Era. Except for the eating Kelpians part, but that didn't start with Georgiou and it didn't end with her either.

Plus, the most important part (have to repeat it), it's fiction. Actually let me put it another way: It's fucking fiction. It's not real. The writers are making it up on the fly. I don't care what she did in the Mirror Universe, only the "Prime" Universe. (Quotations deliberate). The character is entertaining, she doesn't suffer fools, and that works for me. I like Michelle Yeoh's performance.

I too would also have a VERY different stance if Mirror Georgiou was a real person. But she's not. She's made up.

Anyway, from the looks of it, the Section 31 TV Movie will go deeper into her past. Then it'll be possible to go more in-depth.

Kor did horrible things in the TOS Era, but he's "lovable old Kor" in DS9. Garak did horrible things, and he's likeable Garak in DS9. No one ever mentions that stuff.

.
.
.

As far as Kirk in TSFS and TVH, if someone is really to blame for anything he did, it's Sarek. He's the one who told Kirk what he needed to do. And it's highly likely that Sarek pulled some strings as Ambassador of Vulcan. But I don't blame Sarek either.

And anyone who's complaining that Kirk got off easy after saving Earth -- and wants to see him punished (being demoted to Captain doesn't count) -- is basically being the person who's "that person". The heckler in the audience. Don't be that person.

.
.
.

EDITED TO ADD: It's probably been about three-ish years since the last time I got into this. I'm set. I wanted to see for myself what it would be like after all this time and I didn't miss it AT ALL. Maybe I'll talk about this again in another three-ish years. But I prefer never again. Sometimes I can't help myself. And then I end up making posts like this.

Hopefully I can enjoy Section 31 from afar and -- at most -- devote exactly one post to writing a review, so people can see my take, and let that be the end of it. At least for me.

As far as the Kurtzman Era goes, I already have my feet 99% out the door anyway. Section 31 was the last thing on my list.

I'll give Starfleet Academy a shot but if the first episode doesn't grab me, that's it. It's been nice to talking about New Trek with all of you. Except when it wasn't. But all of that comes with the territory.
 
Last edited:
Crimes are not ‘just’ crimes. To claim it’s as black and white as that is utterly infantile.

There are circumstances to consider when sentencing. Background, history and character…

It’s far more nuanced than a blasé statement like ‘crimes are crimes’.

Goodness me. I expected better of you, Fireproof.
A judge can administer whatever rationale they like but that doesn't change the fact that their should be consequences for actions. Far more than what Kirk received.

I don't consider it black and white but a balance of options with the consequences being clearly presented and the rationale why they are not applied. The rationale doesn't always fit for me though. Because that's not teaching anyone a damn thing.
 
A judge can administer whatever rationale they like but that doesn't change the fact that their should be consequences for actions. Far more than what Kirk received.

Fortunately that’s for trained, impartial persons like Judges to decide.

You seriously think Kirk should have done time for saving the world? Ten lashes? Or what? What punishment would be appropriate exactly?

And how would you go about writing a scene where some Judge nails Kirk to the wall at the end of a light-hearted romp like TVH?

The audience does learn something from the movie. They learn that rules can be bent or broken if necessary and that being too hidebound will result in disaster. If Kirk hadn’t acted, then millions would have died, all in the name of red tape.

But apparently what you took from it is that Kirk should have been dumped in a remote colony planet’s gulag at the end of the movie until he’s learned his lesson?

I’m glad you don’t write Star Trek and I’m eternally grateful that you aren’t in any position of judicial power.
 
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.
Judging by the trailer, we might see another trope which gives her a tragic backstory.

Not a fair or equal comparison, but a story like  Wicked can turn an otherwise pure villain into a sad and tragic character by blaming someone else for their villainy.
 
You seriously think Kirk should have done time for saving the world?
Time for his crimes, yes.
And how would you go about nailing writing a scene where some Judge nails Kirk to the wall at the end of a light-hearted romp like TVH?
Possibly for talent people like writers to do.

I’m glad you don’t write Star Trek and I’m eternal grateful that you aren’t in any position of judicial power.
Accurate on both counts.

But apparently what you took from it is that Kirk should have been dumped in a remote colony planet’s gulag until he’s learned his lesson?
Not exactly, no. Just doing time for fucking assaulting officers, conspiracy, theft of property, violating direct orders, violating a quarantine zone, killing foreign troopers under a false flag of truce.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm unnecessarily harsh. It is the judgmental aspect of my personality. And since it's fiction, I feel that sometimes consequences get watered down in the name of entertainment. It's damn frustrating at times.
 
Not exactly, no. Just doing time for fucking assaulting officers, conspiracy, theft of property, violating direct orders, violating a quarantine zone, killing foreign troopers under a false flag of truce.

Applying real world morals to an action-adventure movie is a fools game.

Do you also believe Indiana Jones should be answerable to the police when he runs through a marketplace and trashes it? Should Luke Skywalker be put on trial for destroying the Death Star and killing thousands of people in the process?

As Harrison Ford once said to Mark Hamill… ‘Kid, it ain’t that kind of movie…’.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Do you also believe Indiana Jones should be answerable to the police when he runs through a marketplace and trashes it? Should Luke Skywalker be put on trial for destroying the Death Star and killing thousands of people in the process?
If I'm feeling less gracious yes and yes.

Applying real world morals to an action-adventure movie is a fools game.
Seems to be a favorite game around here though ;)
 
I think, Mr @fireproof78 that you are in one of your stubborn, contrarian moods and I’m going to leave you to it.

There’s no talking to you when you’re like this, but at the same time I don’t want to argue with you.
No, I'm actually of that attitude around a lot of law breaking in crimes. No, it's not logical, it's completely irrational. It's an aspect of my personality that is not pretty but there are rules and laws for a reason. If one is going to circumvent those laws then a reason needs to be issued.

Things like Star Wars and Indiana Jones are good enough adventures to usually ignore, same in bull sessions within a fan group.

Star Trek IV always landed sideways for me. In my younger years it pissed me off. Now, I just have to temper that part of my personality but its still there and doesn't change that judgmental side.
 
If not for TVH, I wouldn't have become a fan... and I wouldn't be here.

So, if nothing else, I'll always appreciate Star Trek IV for that. And also, because I thought it ended the Genesis Trilogy in a fun way.

Having the characters show up in Present Day allowed for me -- a non-fan at the time -- to connect with them and it served as an entry point in The Franchise. In a way, like Gillian, I was coming with them.

For all intents and purposes, Star Trek IV is when I "entered" the 23rd Century and the end of Discovery Season 2 is when I "left" it. If that makes sense.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top