It gets the clicks and likes.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
You're almost 90, George. This is not a good look for you, and hasn't been for a while.
Yup, I've got the second draft script of Farpoint in my collection, which pre-dates the addition of Q. Placed at the back of the script are new pages for the first couple acts that have Q, which are a match for rough draft script pages from Roddenberry's word processor before it was sent to the typist for distribution.
I grew up with STAR TREK, the original series. TNG came out when I was in high school I've loved all of it. Until 2009. I thought the J.J. Abrams movies were okay, certainly not bad. ST Beyond even felt more like a Trek story than the previous two. Now.... Section 31 is the first ever version of Trek that I will refer to as Trash. It's that bad to me.
I would love to see that. Do you know if there is a digitized copy available online anywhere?
None that I'm aware of, sadly.
Honestly, calling it a "feud" at this point is pretty generous. I hardly ever* see Shatner respond in kind to Takei's constant attacks, because let's face it, he's got a lot more going on and doesn't need to keep bringing up old stuff like that to get people to pay attention to him. If Takei ever finds himself near a microphone, chances are he's saying something derogatory about Shatner at some point.
*I say "hardly ever" because I did once personally witness Shatner make a joke at Takei's expense, and even then it was pretty mild. At a Q&A before a screening of TWOK, Shatner was asked which other part he'd like to play on Star Trek besides Kirk. Shatner immediately responded, "Sulu, so I wouldn't have to put up with George Takei!"
It’s more like a vendetta as opposed to a feud.
They hired Michael Dorn who was built like a Tall Line Backer, casted him as the new "Head of Security".
Those who are IRL Operators / Security / Military Types usually aren't the most "Intellectual Types".
They're the "Action Oriented Types".
They usually have a specific set of skills, and it has more to do with getting rid of a target.
Compared to a typical "Mustache Twirling" Villain of the week, it's a lateral shift in roles.
One that comes with alot more "Screen Time" at least.
He just wanted to have some more fun, with his character.
Interesting opinion.
I think this another example of projecting a modern world sensibility onto a future world.
Rank doesn't really matter quite as much in Trek, and "Captain" in Starfleet... by and large *IS* "Starship Commander". If you don't want to command a starship, there's little reason to become a Captain, same for full Commander.
That being said, people can and do reach higher rank without necessarily going on to command a starship. Scotty is an example, being a Captain but... still just being an engineer just in charge of more engineering stuff.
We've learned time and again that Star Trek doesn't work the same way modern day does. People think differently. People aren't doing things in Starfleet for money or for recognition. They're doing it because they want to do it, and they want to contribute. Rank is really more of a formality, and while yeah sure it's cool to increase in rank... and... people do in fact increase in rank... it's also not that big of a deal.
But to circle back to the point, yes, MOST people will probably top out at Lt. Commander. Commander and Captain are fairly specific things in Starfleet, and they are generally directly related to... command. If you're a bangin' Stellar Cartographer, and you want to keep doing Stellar Cartography... you would probably move up to Lt. Commander. Being a Commander Stellar Cartographer would move you up in position to be less doing Stellar Cartography, more running teams of Stellar Cartographers who are doing the Stellar Cartography.
Swinging back to a modern-day, real-world perspective... this is an issue I see often in the private sector. It's something I deal with directly... i'm in management, involved with hiring/promoting management. The problem is that we have set up a system where "Advancement" for most roles means "People Management", and... in my experience... most people aren't really suited for people management. FAAAAARRR too often, a person may be exceptional at X Role, and then they want to advance, which places them in a Management role, managing people doing X Role. As it turns out, which should be no surprise to people but it is, being good at X Role doesn't NOT necessarily translate to management. It's an entirely different skillset. I work heavily with sales. We have this habit (as do most companies) of promoting really good salespeople to management roles. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Being really good at sales has very little to do with being really good at management.
In terms of Star Trek... there's no particular reason to keep advancing, because money isn't really a concern. The reason most people want to advance in their careers is to make more money. In Starfleet, one would generally want to advance in their career because they want to take on a new role. If somebody is happy doing the job they are doing and they're doing it well? Awesome! Keep it up!
Similar threads
- Locked
