What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
McCoy didn't even know what was going on until Kirk broke him out of the cell. He told him that he was 'suffering from a Vulcan mind meld', and then McCoy said, "That green-blooded son of a bitch. It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost."
And things were going so quickly, that McCoy didn't even see a doctor. We never saw or heard about him seeing one. So could he be diagnosed with any condition, Vulcan or otherwise, if no one actually examined him?
The question, at this point in the movie from the perspective of anyone not by the Genesis planet, of what they need Spock's body for is a good one.
(This is SO controversial!)
That's when Dr. Squeek should have showed up and said "Actually, Admiral, it has been proven by doctors T'ipsy and Schlock that this is a serious medical condition and we should attend to it post haste."
The point is that Kirk went to his boss, the top of all Starfleet and said "Hey, I've got a sick guy, a dead friend, the Vulcan ambassador asking me for help, and we need to do a thing" and Morrow came back with "Nahhhhhhh. That's a bunch of pointy eared green blooded nonsense."
That's when Dr. Squeek should have showed up and said "Actually, Admiral, it has been proven by doctors T'ipsy and Schlock that this is a serious medical condition and we should attend to it post haste."
A so-called assault that did not deserve the level of punishment suggested by you-know-who. Further, his complaining centers on Kirk "assaulting" a redshirt, yet fails to aim that same level of anger toward Sulu, who also "assaulted" a guard, destroyed Federation property, etc. The law must have separate meanings for each individual.
Of course you are correct, but someone skips over the gravity of Kirk's actions, choosing to go back to a couple of incidents as if that was all the Federation should focus on. He's advocating the kind of rigged, ignoring the totality of evidence, damned-before-the-trial courts seen in too many American criminal cases.
That seems to be the "cure" he's prescribing.
Without question, which makes him the face of what is best about the Star Trek concept. He was never designed to be some constantly self-questioning, indecisive whisperer staring at a wall, but one who often acted based on holding himself to the highest moral code, even in the face of a losing situation and/or official opposition. That said, his judgement never moved him to commit acts that would be considered crimes against the living, war crimes, etc., making him a very human, realistic character, instead of a walking statue issuing slogans like another Starfleet captain tended to do.
The feel the movie always gave me was that it formally was a punishment (So Starfleet could always say they took appropriate disciplinary action if they were approached by critics), but in actuality it was the 'reward' Kirk wanted (having a starship command again instead of a dull desk job, even if it came with a rank reduction).
Would you like to address me by name?
Sulu should also face charges too.
But, I was talking about Kirk in the moment. But, yes, equal application of the law is required.
And no anger here towards the characters. Simply apply the law justly without preferential treatment.
Nope. Assumption. Demonstrate that that is what I requesting please and thank you before asserting it.
"Rarely" means it has been attempted, so there was a historical trail, which anyone--Vulcan or not--should not have dismissed as the equivalent of 60s record-buyers playing LPs backward and claiming something magical spoke to them. Morrow was being a smug atheist, making himself appear to be a fool, and imagine what the brass thought once Spock was back among the living--"Zoiks! A-a ghost, Scoob!!". No, they had to accept the reality of that "mysticism" they so comfortably wrote off in their foolish manner.
Of course it was. The Federation was over a barrel and took the course of action the public would approve of. Kirk made them look like incompetent jackasses, so they kicked him out of the Admiral's Club.
What punishment would you have put up on screen?
Brig time, considered time already served due to time in exile on Vulcan.
A letter of reprimand in his permanent record.
Not when the 'rarely' is once or twice in a couple thousand years.
I would imagine that would be standard fare, after a criminal conviction. Even if it isn't exactly what you want, there would a notation of a violation of the chain of command.
I would sure hope so.
Sorry, I am sure people were expecting me to be a lot more cruel, possibly hanging Kirk and company from a yardarm but I checked in with legal counsel on the matter:
No. I just wondered what Starfleet didn't do that we went on pages and pages talking about.
Fun conversation.
I'd like to come back to this because I think it's an interesting question. I think Garak. Quark is mostly a petty crook, but Garak did (we assume) horrible things as a member of the Obsidian Order. One could argue he's "punished" eventually in seeing Cardassia in a broken state at the end of the war, but I'm not sure. He's a very "grey area" character.
OTOH, Quark, especially in the beginning, is a purely selfish character. And he never really gets any kind of comeuppance. In fact, in franchising Quark's, you could say he gets rewarded for his ways.
*SNORT!*
Yeah, no. I'd argue that's more in the Most People Would Call Them War Crimes ballpark. But then we get into Georgiou territory again, because It's The Klingon Way. I think in both cases, it's probably one of those things that requires something like an International/Interstellar Court, where the preponderance of peoples in a quadrant (or whatever) can decide.
Exactly. They knew what they were getting into. Everyone of them knew they were risking court martial and possibly jail.
I watched it yesterday. I thought it held up quite well.
My friend, I think you are what we call in D&D "lawful neutral".
"Lawful neutral defines any character or approach that follows a strict code to maintain stability and order. Lawful neutral characters believe in and support the rule of law, no matter whether it's good or evil."
I'm SO glad someone else uses this phrase!
More realistic, but probably not as good Drama.
(I like the names!)
So, he's Odo!
Eh. Starfleet failed to charge him with some other things I think but overall the demotion didn't carry enough weight. In my humble, belabored and minority opinionNo. I just wondered what Starfleet didn't do that we went on pages and pages talking about.
Fun conversation.
I can be, at times, yes.
I did push for more 'proper' controversial stuff so blame me
Sometimes the laws an ass and needs to be broken, the punishment does not need to fit the crime.Eh. Starfleet failed to charge him with some other things I think but overall the demotion didn't carry enough weight. In my humble, belabored and minority opinion
I can be, at times, yes.
And that's on a judge to decide.
I'm not a judge. I just look at things how I see them in media and sometimes things don't line up the way I like them. That's my thing.
I think it's safe to say no one thought this would be controversial, but here we are...I did push for more 'proper' controversial stuff so blame me
Similar threads
- Locked
