What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[BillJ]

I mean like Rodney T. Kirk.

I think they should Costanza (or David if you will) Hemmer back on to Strange New Worlds. He's just back in engineering and nobody should say anything. If anyone complains they can say "This was the story we wanted to tell. We can't be constrained by every detail that came in episodes before. Canon is too constricting to good television."

Didn't they already pull that joke with Shaxs?

 

[Tallguy]

Didn't they already pull that joke with Shaxs?

Oh no. They acknowledge that he died. Rutherford remembered it. Shax told him about it.

I mean full on "Hemmer never died. None of the characters know that he died because it never happened. There is no in universe explanation. It's just what the writers wanted to do because it's a good story."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Oh no. They acknowledge that he died. Rutherford remembered it. Shax told him about it.

I mean full on "Hemmer never died. None of the characters know that he died because it never happened. There is no in universe explanation. It's just what the writers wanted to do because it's a good story."

Launching half a century of head canon and complaints.

 

[fireproof78]

If it's an entertaining plot, why would it be any less entertaining if it was disconnected from canon?

To me, this entire issue stems from the insistence of the powers that be that everything all fits together as a cohesive continuity.

It is not the fans tying the producers' hands. They tie their own hands by claiming a canon they want to then sidestep, instead of just creating their own thing, and letting it exist on its own without the connections. If it was a great idea and entertaining plot, why not let it be unencumbered by continuity and be its own version of Star Trek?

Because they fear the fan base.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh no. They acknowledge that he died. Rutherford remembered it. Shax told him about it.

I mean full on "Hemmer never died. None of the characters know that he died because it never happened. There is no in universe explanation. It's just what the writers wanted to do because it's a good story."

Don't people want that with Tucker?

 

[Nerys Myk]

To me, this entire issue stems from the insistence of the powers that be that everything all fits together as a cohesive continuity.

Do they? That seems to be a fan driven concept. I think TPTB know they are making TV Shows and have changed things to reflect modern times in a loose continuity

 

[cooleddie74]

"Hemmer never died."

This isn't Disney Era lightsaber wounds.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This isn't Disney Era lightsaber wounds.

They managed to miss every vital organ...

 

[cooleddie74]

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

You mean like James R Kirk?

Well, yes. Obviously.

 

[Macintosh]

If anyone complains they can say "This was the story we wanted to tell. We can't be constrained by every detail that came in episodes before. Canon is too constricting to good television."

This is the kind of thinking that results in musical episodes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This is the kind of thinking that results in musical episodes.

More please.

 

[1001001]

This is the kind of thinking that results in musical episodes.

SNW’s musical episode was awesome.

 

[Tallguy]

This isn't Disney Era lightsaber wounds.

You still misunderstand. Disney put a lightsaber through Sabine and then showed her miraculously recovering. Darth Maul was cut in half and then had mechanical legs. (HEY! Wait a second! THAT'S NOT DISNEY. Are you saying that Darth Kennedy didn't come up with this?)

Even Dallas made sure we all knew (they all... I never watched Dallas) that Bobby's death was alllllll a dream.

This is just "Hey, canon is hard and too constricting and is only for nerds anyway." We don't have to explain anything. Just bring Hemmer back.

This is the kind of thinking that results in musical episodes.

It's worse than that. Even the musical episode was acknowledged in a subsequent episode.

SNW’s musical episode was awesome.

Controversial opinions only, I thought.

 

[MAGolding]

As well as responsibility for the safety of all lives aboard. There are many stories of captains refusing to leave, including the captain of the Bismarck during World War 2.

It's an interesting attitude to take in Star Trek given the economics. The value should be on those experience of the crew and saving as many as possible not expecting the captain to die.

According to Wikipedia's account of the battle, the British ships opened fire beginning at 8:47 AM. And just 15 minutes later:

At 09:02, a 16-inch shell from Rodney struck Bismarck's forward superstructure, killing hundreds of men and severely damaging the two forward turrets. According to survivors, this salvo probably killed both Lindemann and Lütjens and the rest of the bridge staff,[147] although other survivors stated that they saw Lindemann on the deck as the ship sank.[148] The main fire control director was also destroyed by this hit, which probably also killed Schneider. A second shell from this salvo struck the forward main battery, which was disabled, though it fired one last salvo at 09:27.[149][150]

By 9:30 the executive officer, Hans Oels, ordered the Bismarck scuttled and the crew to abandon ship. The scuttling charges went off about 10:20, and Bismarck sank below the waves about 10:40.

In the movie Sink the Bismarck! (1960), as I remember, when the order was given to abandon ship the Bismarck was in much better shape that it probably was in real life according to what I have read. From what I have read the superstructure of the Bismarck was almost destroyed from more than 400 shell hits.

In the movie Captain LIndemann or Admiral Lutjens gives a public address message to abandon ship, despite the fact that the bridge had been destroyed and probably both killed some time earlier.

Some the survivors said they saw Captain Lindemann standing at attention on the stern of the ship as it sank. Maybe it was the captain and maybe some other officer mistaken for him. And perhaps he was not going down with the ship so much as waiting for everyone else to get off first.

 

[fireproof78]

According to Wikipedia's account of the battle, the British ships opened fire beginning at 8:47 AM. And just 15 minutes later:

By 9:30 the executive officer, Hans Oels, ordered the Bismarck scuttled and the crew to abandon ship. The scuttling charges went off about 10:20, and Bismarck sank below the waves about 10:40.

In the movie Sink the Bismarck! (1960), as I remember, when the order was given to abandon ship the Bismarck was in much better shape that it probably was in real life according to what I have read. From what I have read the superstructure of the Bismarck was almost destroyed from more than 400 shell hits.

In the movie Captain LIndemann or Admiral Lutjens gives a public address message to abandon ship, despite the fact that the bridge had been destroyed and probably both killed some time earlier.

Some the survivors said they saw Captain Lindemann standing at attention on the stern of the ship as it sank. Maybe it was the captain and maybe some other officer mistaken for him. And perhaps he was not going down with the ship so much as waiting for everyone else to get off first.

I will need to find my book by Dr. Ballard but according to accounts Lutjens and Captain Ernst Lindemann were seen on the stern, salute and went down after the battle.


The damage to their rudder was critical in making it a good target. Only 115 men survived of the 2000 crew.

 

[1001001]

According to Wikipedia's account of the battle, the British ships opened fire beginning at 8:47 AM. And just 15 minutes later:

By 9:30 the executive officer, Hans Oels, ordered the Bismarck scuttled and the crew to abandon ship. The scuttling charges went off about 10:20, and Bismarck sank below the waves about 10:40.

In the movie Sink the Bismarck! (1960), as I remember, when the order was given to abandon ship the Bismarck was in much better shape that it probably was in real life according to what I have read. From what I have read the superstructure of the Bismarck was almost destroyed from more than 400 shell hits.

In the movie Captain LIndemann or Admiral Lutjens gives a public address message to abandon ship, despite the fact that the bridge had been destroyed and probably both killed some time earlier.

Some the survivors said they saw Captain Lindemann standing at attention on the stern of the ship as it sank. Maybe it was the captain and maybe some other officer mistaken for him. And perhaps he was not going down with the ship so much as waiting for everyone else to get off first.

I will need to find my book by Dr. Ballard but according to accounts Lutjens and Captain Ernst Lindemann were seen on the stern, salute and went down after the battle.


The damage to their rudder was critical in making it a good target. Only 115 men survived of the 2000 crew.

Yes as riveting as all this is, it has nothing to do with Star Trek.

@MAGolding you've been spoken to about this numerous times. We’re not doing this again.

 

[fireproof78]

This is the kind of thinking that results in musical episodes.

Ok, and?

I think Trek is enough of a variety platform to accept it.

Yes as riveting as all this is, it has nothing to do with Star Trek.

@MAGolding you've been spoken to about this numerous times. We’re not doing this again.

My bad. I started it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think Trek is enough of a variety platform to accept it.

Only if they come up with a way better way to justify it next time. Like maybe it's all a dream. Or maybe they're competing for the big talent show.

(I'm sarcastically indicating that they way they did it was so bad basically anything would be an improvement).

 

[fireproof78]

Only if they come up with a way better way to justify it next time. Like maybe it's all a dream. Or maybe they're competing for the big talent show.

(I'm sarcastically indicating that they way they did it was so bad basically anything would be an improvement).

I don't care for it but the justification was about on par for other stupid justifications in Trek.