What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Nyotarules]

The United States has “expats” who live and own property all over the world under foreign governments.

OK, but imagine if there was an island close to Russia that was disputed territory for centuries. And American citizens, despite warnings from the US government decided to up sticks and live there and remain, even after the territory is conceded to Russia after a war. If they refuse to leave, then sorry that's on them if Russia decides to harrass them. Why should the USA go to war for them?

 

[Tallguy]

OK, but imagine if there was an island close to Russia that was disputed territory for centuries. And American citizens, despite warnings from the US government decided to up sticks and live there and remain, even after the territory is conceded to Russia after a war. If they refuse to leave, then sorry that's on them if Russia decides to harrass them. Why should the USA go to war for them?

Is part of the treaty that Russia would NOT harass them? Then Russia is breaking the treaty. Why is Russia (Cardassia) RISKING war by breaking the treaty?

This wasn't the Federation saying "Oh, our bad. This was totally yours all along." This was part of a series of concessions and compromises, presumably by both sides. Then the Cardassians broke those compromises.

The rise of the Maquis was not because the Federation gave away the planets. The rise of the Maquis was because the Cardassians were doing what they said (as part of this agreement) they would not. Interfering with the settlers.

Why was there not a Cardassian equivalent to the Maquis?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They should have put the script for "Yesterday's Enterprise" in a safe somewhere until they were ready to do a TNG movie. If it had to be a crossover then there wouldn't have been a better plot... just sub the Enterprise-A for the Enterprise-C and you're there.

If a TNG movie had to be produced, "Yesterday's Enterprise" would have been a tight, very Trek-ian route to take, and free of the BS "passing the torch" crap that was Generations. If only that script had not been shot as one of the episodes.

 

[Commander Troi]

Why was there not a Cardassian equivalent to the Maquis?

I would like to have seen that Other Side. There had to be some Cardassians in disputed or now-Fed territory who weren't happy with that.

 

[Farscape One]

I would like to have seen that Other Side. There had to be some Cardassians in disputed or now-Fed territory who weren't happy with that.

According to Cal Hudson in "THE MAQUIS, PART I", the Cardassians were very pleased with what they got out of the treaty.

And weapons were being secretly supplied to Cardassian colonies in the DMZ. The Cardassians were trying to drive out the remaining Federation colonists... the Cardassians on the Federation held worlds were never being driven out, so no need for a Cardassian version of the Maquis.

 

[Grant]

The Transporter is/war a terrible plot device conjured to save money that became far too important in Trek. They should have just used shuttles to get to the various planets.

 

[fireproof78]

The Transporter is/war a terrible plot device conjured to save money that became far too important in Trek. They should have just used shuttles to get to the various planets.

That's making the thread live up to its name

 

[at Quark's]

That they were willing to go along with the plan of ordering Data to conceal the truth at all is rather hanky. They don't know him any better than the others. How could they guarantee Data's silence any more than the other 1000? Those Paxans are pretty gullible IMHO. So yeah... I'd have just played along with the scheme as planned, & then just slipped Data some backdoor instructions somehow, to fess up to the whole story, once we're safely at a distance.

Come to think of it, if Data couldn't be stunned, the most certain way to secure his silence probably would have been to damage Data in such a way he couldn't be repaired (and no memory files retrieved), and make it look like part of an accident as a result of the supposed wormhole encounter somehow.

But the Paxans seem to be greatly reluctant to actually kill/destroy (someone), despite all their talk.

 

[Citiprime]

I would like to have seen that Other Side. There had to be some Cardassians in disputed or now-Fed territory who weren't happy with that.

The other side IS the Cardassian Central Command. They're directly involved and trying to drive out the other side in order to claim all of the space for themselves.

The Maquis are separate from the Federation but "The Maquis, Part II" makes clear the Central Command is supplying the Cardassian colonists (or maybe elements of the Cardassian Union are on the ground directing the attacks against the Federation colonies). The Cardassians were ready to make Dukat the fall guy before he helped Sisko uncover the third-party they were using to move weapons into the DMZ for the Cardassian elements.

OK, but imagine if there was an island close to Russia that was disputed territory for centuries. And American citizens, despite warnings from the US government decided to up sticks and live there and remain, even after the territory is conceded to Russia after a war. If they refuse to leave, then sorry that's on them if Russia decides to harrass them. Why should the USA go to war for them?

The argument of the pro-Maquis side would probably be that the Cardassians were not abiding in good faith by the treaty. The Cardassians were caught smuggling weapons to their partisans. Why should the Federation honor a peace treaty the Cardassians are blatantly violating?

If you were a Federation citizen whose home had been traded away by some diplomat light-years away to Cardassians who weren't even living up to the terms of the agreement, I think most people would be pretty pissed and want their government to DO SOMETHING, otherwise you invite more radical elements to have sway and the terrorism the Maquis resorts to.

 

[Commander Troi]

The other side IS the Cardassian Central Command.

Yes, and given Cardassia is a very authoritarian government, there wouldn't have been much complaining. However, the writer in me 1) hates the All X are the Same trope and 2) can't help but wonder if some Cardassian farmer - maybe someone who went to a colony to get a tiny bit further away from Central Command - might've grumbled a little. Pure speculation with no basis in the show; just a thought experiment.

 

[Tallguy]

I'm sure there was grumbling on both sides of the fence. The difference is how the Federation would have treated the Cardassians now on the Fed side of the fence vs. how the settlers on the Cardassian side were treated. Presumably the Federation held up the treaty and the Cardassians clearly did not. So the Fed settlers got it from both sides. Sold out by their own government and then hounded by the supposedly peaceful new one. Hence: Maquis.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm sure there was grumbling on both sides of the fence. The difference is how the Federation would have treated the Cardassians now on the Fed side of the fence vs. how the settlers on the Cardassian side were treated. Presumably the Federation held up the treaty and the Cardassians clearly did not. So the Fed settlers got it from both sides. Sold out by their own government and then hounded by the supposedly peaceful new one. Hence: Maquis.

I would have to beg the question, based upon what is presented in the shows, that there is a rather primitive drive here by the Maquis to remain under a government that is rather antithetical to their values. Is that colony that important to risk such an outcome?

And before you say, "Well, fireproof, imagine if your home was taken from you by your government," let me remind this austere body that the Federation is supposed to be evolved. The need for material possessions is eliminated and if my house is removed I can get a new one, unlike my current state which would require a lot more headache since I built it so either have to build again, or pay to have it built.

That's not the case with the Federation or its citizens. These items can be replaced, relatively cheaply. This is a 21st century reaction to a 24th century problem.

 

[Farscape One]

One other thing about the Maquis... I used to be on their side of things.

Until they started stealing and attacking places outside their home systems. They went from waging a defensive war to a full on offensive war. But these guts were just supposed to be defending their homes.

A list of things the Maquis did...

1. Stole the Defiant and destroyed a Cardassian outpost.

2. Stole a dozen Federation industrial replicators.

3. Stole materials from Federation convoys and used them to create a biological weapon and poisoned TWO Cardassian planets.

4. Attacked and crippled TWO Starfleet ships. (Defiant and Malinche.)


And these are just what has been said and shown on screen. None of these things were 'defending their homes'. They went from actual freedom fighters to aggressive terrorists.

 

[FredH]

The Transporter is/war a terrible plot device conjured to save money that became far too important in Trek. They should have just used shuttles to get to the various planets.

See where you’re coming from, but a counter-argument would be that the transporter beaming people down/up became one of THE most iconic images in Star Trek, probably helping in a small way to distinguish it memory from other sftv. I love Blake’s 7, but when the Liberator crew teleports anywhere, there’s no way a viewer doesn’t momentarily think of Star Trek. (Someone will say they don’t, but I won’t believe them. Yes, I know there are earlier examples of sfnal teleportation, but the teleporter set seems directly modeled on the Transporter, bracelets aside.)

 

[Citiprime]

The Transporter is/war a terrible plot device conjured to save money that became far too important in Trek. They should have just used shuttles to get to the various planets.

Like every other concept on the show, I'd argue it lives and dies on CONSISTENT rules and limitations. To me, that's what makes it "believable."

For example, in general over the years, the basic rules of the transporter include:

• There's a distance limit
• A person's pattern "degrades" the longer they're in the beam
• It can't go through shields
• Extremely dangerous to do while at warp and requires certain conditions
• More problematic and requires more power when done without a transporter pad/room

When the writers forget about those rules because they've written themselves into a corner, and need a way to resolve the danger they put the characters in, that's when it stops being believable and is basically no different than magic.

It's part of the reason I really DISLIKE the 32nd century personal transporters where people are popping around like Nightcrawler from the X-Men. Like I can wrap my head around a technology where someone in a room has me stand on a pad and transports me to a place where they've scanned ahead to find a place to land.

But with the Discovery future personal transporters, how do I beam myself into the next room without possibly ending up fused with the furniture that I didn't realize was in the spot that I couldn't see was there before materializing?

 

[fireproof78]

and is basically no different than magic.

Because it is. The limits were set then ignored by writers in the name of drama. Even DS9 ignores it in the name of drama.

 

[Citiprime]

Because it is. The limits were set then ignored by writers in the name of drama. Even DS9 ignores it in the name of drama.

If your worldbuilding has no rules or limitations, there are no stakes.

If there are no stakes, there can be no "heroics" or struggle since you've basically created a universe where there are no rules and the fantastical is normal. Your characters can only be as heroic as the problems they have to overcome, and if those problems can be overcome easily because there are no rules or limitations then there's nothing "great" about what they're doing.

For me, the reason Search For Spock works as a story is because for the characters there are limitations, sacrifices, and consequences. If you eliminate those elements from the story and say the circumstances will be whatever we imagine them to be for the moment, it robs the story of any depth.

 

[fireproof78]

If your worldbuilding has no rules or limitations, there are no stakes.

If there are no stakes, there can be no "heroics" or struggle since you've basically created a universe where there are no rules and the fantastical is normal. Your characters can only be as heroic as the problems they have to overcome, and if those problems can be overcome easily because there are no rules or limitations then there's nothing "great" about what they're doing.

For me, the reason Search For Spock works as a story is because for the characters there are limitations, sacrifices, and consequences. If you eliminate those elements from the story and say the circumstances will be whatever we imagine them to be for the moment, it robs the story of any depth.

That escalated quickly.

The transporter splits Kirk in to good and evil halves but in full bodies. Seems pretty intense to conjure the full mass of two people from one

I agree the limits are helpful with the tech but it hardly upends all the stakes.

 

[FormerLurker]

The transporter splits Kirk in to good and evil halves but in full bodies. Seems pretty intense to conjure the full mass of two people from one

Kirk being split into two bodies makes both Thomas Riker and Tuvix possible. And Tuvix's unfortunate demise.

I wonder. If Tuvix's pattern were stored, as it should have been, could he have been reconstituted the same way?

 

[Tallguy]

It's part of the reason I really DISLIKE the 32nd century personal transporters where people are popping around like Nightcrawler from the X-Men.

Now that you mention it I'm pretty sure I said "Bamf" the first time I saw it.