What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Like an Army outpost or a trading outpost on the fringes of the Old West. Limited population and physical scope.
Shouldn't "Outpost" generally mean you're far from 'your civilization'; whether or not you're encroaching upon another Species/Race/Cultures local civilizations or existing territory is a different topical matter and seperate conversation to be had once you discover that fact.
I’ve been thinking about this (and I honestly hadn’t intended to continue it further!), and I think maybe what people mean (in some contexts) — and this very discussion about it — is coming from the distinction between Star TrekTM as a franchise/IP, and “Star Trek” as a worldview.
The latter is arguably something one might have found more in, say, the sort of 70s Trek fandom that some quarters put down — and I wouldn’t be shocked if producers of the actual franchise down through its entire history quietly rolled their eyes about it behind closed doors (which is not me saying they did). In this reading (which absolutely is entirely me spitballing), Star TrekTM is the actual shows and films (and tie-ins), where “Star Trek as worldview” is basically “that nebulous sensibility that the The Best of Trek books used to embody”.
In that sense, things like The Orville and, sure, M*A*S*H (after all!) do rather align with the latter — while Stargate, which I enjoyed a great deal but which I often felt had a ugly realpolitik undercurrent (that wasn’t meant to contrast with some primary idealism the way Section 31 did), arguably doesn’t, despite all the space-exploring and problem-solving. Whereas of course none of these things are Star TrekTM.
Or this could all be a lot of woo, sure. Certainly it is from any commercial sense.
Me and my stupid brain would love some concreteness to this concept. I'll admit to being thick and sometimes I don't care for Star Trek as a worldview. It feels very strange.
That’s entirely fair — it is nebulous (cf. all the neverending arguments about “Gene’s Vision”, etc). I guess basically the sense you sometimes used to get in older Trek fandom (and in some ways, even in the franchise itself through the present) that Star Trek was more a philosophy than a story. Which could absolutely get wildly overblown and lead some people to treat it more like a religion than a story. Sometimes it could be a perfectly admirable ideal view of what humanity ought to be like; and sometimes it could be complete bullshit, and the sort of thing that led later-career Roddenberry to be treated (or see himself) like an actual visionary philosopher, at least in his public persona.
(And of course: at the end of the day, you’re absolutely right — the Trek franchise is a commercial project, full stop. But that other thing was, and sometimes still is, a thing in the air, too.)
I find it needs a balance between these two things. If we say it's all one or all the other then you ignore facets that are between those two.
I entirely agree.
I keep remembering one of my favorite movies.
'How the West Was Won'...
Today this motion picture is held up in the worst possible light, with no permitted understanding of where and why it came, even worse, why farmers went out west in the first place.
They couldn't make a decent enough living.
Why? In the early 19th century a volcano went off. In 1815 farmers couldn't get a crop into their fields in the New England states. Why? Because in July of that year, there was still SNOW on the ground. It didn't melt. People died of the cold and starvation. THIS IS POLICTICAL CORRECTNESS! In other words it is okay for a given population to die, rather than up and move to an area believed to be 'better', whether or not it was, is another matter. Volcanoes are a problem, much greater than most people even think about.
Yellowstone is a volcano. If it blows, anytime soon, where are you going to move to? Seriously. Oh, wait, Mankind is all powerful, no, wait, we aren't. Then there is the Naples Italy problem. It too is on top - you guessed it another super volcano, it too looks like it may blow soon.
My point is that while looking through glasses that are anything but rose colored, "through a glass darkly"(the first letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, end of chapter 13)
Is insane.
Period.
People have the right to live. Neighbors have the right to expect decent behavior. (No eating of the Neighbors, permitted)(Nor coveting your neighbors goods)
This is known as civilization - as in dwelling in a City.
Our Ancestors had to be tough, just in order to survive. Saying this in any other way, is very wrong.
I can go further back, shall I mention the Mongolian Hordes?
Don't put blinders on.
Remember that the Klingons know our history.
They KNOW.
'How the West Was Won'...
Today this motion picture is held up in the worst possible light, with no permitted understanding of where and why it came, even worse, why farmers went out west in the first place.
They couldn't make a decent enough living.
Why? In the early 19th century a volcano went off. In 1815 farmers couldn't get a crop into their fields in the New England states. Why? Because in July of that year, there was still SNOW on the ground. It didn't melt. People died of the cold and starvation. THIS IS POLICTICAL CORRECTNESS! In other words it is okay for a given population to die, rather than up and move to an area believed to be 'better', whether or not it was, is another matter. Volcanoes are a problem, much greater than most people even think about.
Yellowstone is a volcano. If it blows, anytime soon, where are you going to move to? Seriously. Oh, wait, Mankind is all powerful, no, wait, we aren't. Then there is the Naples Italy problem. It too is on top - you guessed it another super volcano, it too looks like it may blow soon.
My point is that while looking through glasses that are anything but rose colored, "through a glass darkly"(the first letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, end of chapter 13)
Is insane.
Period.
People have the right to live. Neighbors have the right to expect decent behavior. (No eating of the Neighbors, permitted)(Nor coveting your neighbors goods)
This is known as civilization - as in dwelling in a City.
Our Ancestors had to be tough, just in order to survive. Saying this in any other way, is very wrong.
I can go further back, shall I mention the Mongolian Hordes?
Don't put blinders on.
Remember that the Klingons know our history.
They KNOW.
Not sure if this is controversial, but...
I think of all the lead captains in STAR TREK, Carol Freeman is the most improved. When LOWER DECKS first started, I thought she was second tier and a bit of a joke. (Which, admittedly, was probably the point, as the California class ships tend to be more the grunts of the fleet, for lack of a better term.) But as the series went on, she showed herself to be more and more capable and actually a pretty good leader. I really liked her.
She definitely showed she earned her rank as the show progressed, and I'm sad we don't get to see more adventures with her, particularly with her posting in the finale. (For now, anyway. Of all the current era shows, LOWER DECKS had the best case and potential to be the one to be on for more than 5 seasons... maybe even hit 100 episodes. I would love to see that return in some form, even if it's only an animated movie. A man can hope, right?)
I think of all the lead captains in STAR TREK, Carol Freeman is the most improved. When LOWER DECKS first started, I thought she was second tier and a bit of a joke. (Which, admittedly, was probably the point, as the California class ships tend to be more the grunts of the fleet, for lack of a better term.) But as the series went on, she showed herself to be more and more capable and actually a pretty good leader. I really liked her.
She definitely showed she earned her rank as the show progressed, and I'm sad we don't get to see more adventures with her, particularly with her posting in the finale. (For now, anyway. Of all the current era shows, LOWER DECKS had the best case and potential to be the one to be on for more than 5 seasons... maybe even hit 100 episodes. I would love to see that return in some form, even if it's only an animated movie. A man can hope, right?)
And for some reason both are like the stuff found on the Guardian of Forever planet.
Some something Preservers.And for some reason both are like the stuff found on the Guardian of Forever planet.
It's become sort slang for anyone who seems to be a asshole and likely bigoted. Became that ever since Godwin's Law ended.
I agree. Both she and, in my opinion, Jack Ransom showed a lot of growth across the series.
My dream is there is enough Trek that they could give us 1 or 2 TV movies a year featuring the continuing missions of the various ended series.
It fits. A lot of LD is about seeming messups turning out to actually be competent and heroic when they get the chance to shine, or get over their issues enough to let themselves shine.
Sure. Everybody has an id on the inside.
What most people won't admit is how much of their id is influenced by the lizard part of our brains. Humans are ashamed of their inner animal inside them and we like to think of ourselves as more evolved than we really are.
Picard definitely does.
Similar threads
