Makes sense to me!
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I know Dax found Victor Hugo too melodramatic, but don't you think in any application of "justice" that's fair there should be a difference between how a person who steals because they're hungry is treated versus a person who steals just for greed? That a wife that murders her husband after being repeatedly abused is a fundamentally different situation than a wife that murders her husband to get his life insurance policy?
If we were to just look at it as stealing is stealing, and there's a dead body with foul play in both circumstances, where we dish out somewhat similar consequences within a sentencing spectrum, that's not fairness.
The reason why a Starfleet officer steals the Enterprise and defies the chain of command should be mitigating circumstance. The fact that without Kirk's theft of the Enterprise, and intervention to save Spock, THERE WOULD BE NO FEDERATION COURT IN EXISTENCE ON EARTH TO CONDEMN HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE, since Spock was instrumental in both identifying the nature of the humpback whale signal and calculating their time warp, is pretty damn good mitigating circumstances providing a rationale for Kirk's actions.
Beyond that, there's not a jury in existence that would look at a similar set of circumstances as those in Search for Spock and The Voyage Home and would then convict Kirk. I wouldn't.
The other way of looking at the situation from Search for Spock, one that any defense attorney worth their salt would trumpet from the mountain tops, is:
- The stupidity of Federation policy, the failure to properly anticipate the actions of foreign actors, and their total dereliction to handle the incident directly contributed to getting the crew of the Grissom killed, including Kirk's son.
- Admiral Kirk was being ordered to abandon his longtime first officer and friend by the leadership of Starfleet, knowingly sacrificing the Vulcan ambassador's son who had just saved hundreds of his fellow shipmates, after being told it may be possible to save his existence.
- And the recklessness of these actions and negligence of those responsible to deal with the situation appropriately, left the door wide open for the Klingons to murder Federation citizens within Federation space.
Kor is only loveable to Klingons (Jadzia considers herself a Klingon, albeit not just a Klingon).
And Garak's past is mentioned *all the time*, both in the show and by the fans. The whole point of what makes him an interesting character is the shades of grey and the nuance, it's not sweeping his past under the rug just so we can enjoy the snark. That's the major key difference that makes Garak a vastly better character than Georgiou, because she comes from a place far less nuanced and far more cartoonishly evil and then basically just flips a switch to just being a regular, only slightly overly-aggressive snarky jerk. Plus literally everyone around her constantly ignores not only her past but also most of her jerk behavior and acts like they're somehow great friends with her when she's only ever been shown to treat them like shit. There's no nuance there at all. It's just snark with absolutely nothing else to speak of.
Possible controversial opinion...
I think the scene where Geordi is watching the sunrise justifies the entire existence of INSURRECTION.
Just a beatifully acted scene. Absolute home run by LeVar Burton.
I think the scene where Geordi is watching the sunrise justifies the entire existence of INSURRECTION.
Just a beatifully acted scene. Absolute home run by LeVar Burton.
I think the Federation alliance with the Klingon Empire is a disgrace for just this reason and I find the Organians morally abhorrent. (I also think a tiny bit less of Gene Coon for asking us to believe that Kirk and Kor are equivalent.)
I adore John Colicos but Kor is a monster.
Who is worse / less accountable for his actions? Garak or Quark?
"The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space...."
They did try. And somehow I think they would skip that trial part. (Evil Galactic Empire, don't you know.)
With notable assist by Mr. Goldsmith.
They didn't.
They weren't seeking him out to put him on trial though... Vader wanted his kid back. That's clear by the end of the movie and it's clear in the revelation at the end that Vader was fully aware who Luke was.
So... no, not really. *shrug*
Last edited:
100%. (Though it’s also a well-paced film. By no means one of my favorites, but Frakes did a good job as director.)
While I think there are very good political and stability-promoting reasons for the alliance with the Klingons, it’s true that:
(A) The Klingons have been happily willing to turn on their allies, then switch back and be like “oh we’re all fine now”. (Repeatedly, if you count STO; but the DS9 example, where they
kept it going even after finding out they’d been duped into it by the Founders
(B) I can only imagine that at some point, when the Empire finally collapses, a whole lot of newly-liberated planets now freed from under the Klingon boot are going to feel pretty angry and vengeful against the Federation for having enabled their oppression.
Worf’s great (if an imperial apologist), but the Klingon Empire — not so much. But the Organians just wanted to prevent mass death, which is perfectly understandable.
According to the Special-er DVD Edition Vader finds out that Luke is his kid during the film. According to common sense (i.e. NOT the Special-er DVD Edition) the Empire is pursuing the Rebel that destroyed the Death Star and the Rebel Alliance Command in general.
And no he's not going to be put on trial he's going to be summarily executed for treason. This is the government that abducted a sitting Senator in secret and had her tortured for information and then had her sentenced to execution. (Although they took their own sweet time about it.)
Taking it back to Jimmy T. - The President sums it up: There are "mitigating circumstances". And because the Federation wants to maintain at least the appearance of "keeping discipline in any chain of command" there is a trail. But I would think literally saving the capital of the Federation and rescuing the remaining members of a scientific expedition that were ruthlessly attacked by a foreign government within Federation borders might get you a bit of leniency.
Right?
I never consider Worf culturally a Klingon. And the other Klingons don't either.
The only "honorable" Klingons we saw in nearly 60 years of Star Trek (that I remember anyway) were Kang and Mara, Gorkon, and maaaaaybe Martok. (I suppose that Colonel Worf fellow in Star Trek VI was OK.)
Although, I do think the science-fiction/cultural element adds an extra layer to this. Can you totally judge the principles of an alien culture by human values?
AZETBUR: “Inalien? If you could only hear yourselves. Human rights? Why, the very name is racist."
For example, by every modern standard of criminal law, Worf commits premeditated murder when he kills Duras. He might have mitigation in some venues for it being a "crime of passion," but he intentionally went to Duras' ship to kill him with foreknowledge and malice.
It's murder to us, but it's not to the Klingons.
Worf got a reprimand from Picard, but if we were applying human standards and not taking into account cultural considerations, I think a human Starfleet officer loses their commission at least and probably ends up with criminal charges against them.
I have thought about this issue with the people I know, and where the line should be. I have a friend who's Palestinian. She's in her 20s, loves horror movies, and listens to heavy metal. But she's "chosen" to wear a hijab in public because it was expected by her family, she has a curfew where she has to be home by 5pm every night, and was limited to only attending a PA school that would be in a city where she could stay with immediate family. My own personal feelings is that all of the cultural trappings that leaves her covered, controlled, and limited in living her life are wrong. But is it my place to impose my cultural values on her and others?
I think that in any situation where cultures of different values coexist there are going to be things where you have to respect the other person's "right to be wrong."
Interesting… when? Have they edited new stuff in?
Otherwise, the only thing that comes to mind is if Vader is somehow actually present during Luke’s vision on Degobah?
I believe this particular charge lacks merit and could easily be disputed. Besides, there is no evidence to support this charge in court.
No, it's in the redone audience with the Really Fat Palpatine (Re-shot during Revenge of the Sith, I believe). There's new dialog that is supposedly Palpatine telling Vader that this is his son. It makes as much sense as Yoda's hurried dialog to Obi-Wan about Qui-Gon that supposedly explains why all the Jedi in the Original Trilogy vanish when they die but nobody in the Prequels did. Way to go, George.
But whatever Vader's motivations the Empire is after Luke Skywalker, renegade and terrorist, for crimes against the state.
One of the dumbest lines in Star Trek (excepting anything Scott said in The Lights of Zetar). It's essentially wordplay that works in English. Kinda. Kirk quoting the Constitution felt more organic than Chekov busting out Thomas Jefferson in the middle of a diplomatic dinner.
But Azetbur getting to play lofty and high minded (rather than wrong and misguided) was especially grating. Of course this is the movie where you can almost see that the script originally said "Bigots say bigot things" and they scratched it out and wrote "They all look alike". And the writers said "Because that's how they talk, right?" (I imagine the world where Star Trek VI had gotten even one more re-write.)
"Captain Kirk who are you to say what harm was done?" "Who do I have to be?"
Going back to Kor: When he orders the execution of hundreds of Organians I don't think we can shrug and say "Well, it's their way." But many people do.
I'll keep the conversation to fictional space races, thanks. I have enough trouble in my life.
I suppose so… if we as the audience are supposed to side with the Empire and be sympathetic to their perspective…?
That’s where Andor goes I guess.
As in the Ford quote Hamill cited above, Star Wars just wasn’t a movie that was meant to be thought about that much.
No. Not sympathetic. But that is what will happen.
I suppose the original quote was
SHOULD he be? Well, no because we want the Empire to be overthrown.
When Kirk and his Merry Band stole Federation property they knew they were outlaws and that their actions were illegal and would most likely have consequences to their lives and careers. They certainly weren't planning for whales. Or Klingons.
When Admiral Morrow denied Kirk his request to return to Genesis his orders were not "Do NOT rescue the science team from the Klingons and by no means are you to time travel and save Earth!"
Are we watching the same show?
I mean more that we see things from the Empire’s side. Mainly through the bad cop character?
It’s a while since I saw it.
Only to a certain degree..A judge may be benevolent but there still should be fucking consequences for a person's action.
Kirk gets a reward.
I'm glad you know the minds of all people.
I appreciate that cases have nuance but there is still the equal application of the law to consider. If we reward law breaking behavior that does not strike me as fair either.
It's got company.....mostly dramatic movies, to be sure, but there was a tongue-in-cheek flick with Paul Fix called HITLER, DEAD OR ALIVE, in which he got dead long before Quentin Tarantino homaged it.
I'm not sure if the first TO BE OR NOT TO BE holds up now, but it's probably still better then THE HORN BLOWS AT MIDNIGHT. The only time Jack Benny popped up in a drama he played himself before James Earl Jones became the president 50 years or so ago.
And CATSPAW is a classic.
A bit too late to avoid being that person.
.
Oh, but we're supposed to view any allegedly "illegal" action as worthy of overcharging and brutal punishment as the one and only corrective measure, because--as we all know--harsh punishment is the most effective way to instruct and rehabilitate anyone, no matter the "crime" (an especially harmless, and ultimately heroic "crime" in Kirk's case)...or so that is what is argued by one member.
Indeed, especially the second half of your statement.
Agreed across the board. Anyone who would attempt to sentence their own savior deserves to be stripped of their position, barred from ever holding any rank or title of authority ever again, because it is clear they were not operating from any ethical perspective.
All inarguable points, particularly Starfleet / the Federation denying Kirk access to the Genesis planet due as much to deeply ignorant brushing off of what was described as "Vulcan mysticism" (IOW, the dismissive atheists of the Federation at work) as the controversy about the Genesis project.
He is demoted.
That he sees the demotion as a reward doesn’t change the fact it is intended as a punishment.
Starfleet don’t see it as a reward.
Similar threads
- Locked
