TOS- Overrated?
- Thread starter AdmiralScreed
- Start date
You really get off on name calling when someone disagrees with you, don't you?
I noticed you didn't really comment on this question...
Sometimes a situation is so complex that the rule book doesn't provide a good answer. If the planet doesn't belong to the Federation then it should be open to annexation by any power that the S'ona decide to align with, correct? I can guarantee the Klingons, Romulans or some other power wouldn't have treated the Ba'ku with kid gloves. Once the word got out about Metaphasics, everyone and his uncle would've coveted it.
So either you claim the planet for yourself and benefit from it while doing as little damage to Ba'ku culture as possible or you essentially declare open season on them.
Sometimes good people are forced to choose from a selection of bad options, so they do the best they can. For more go watch A Private Little War or Too Short a Season.
You guys have drifted off topic... comparing Picard & Kirk, debating the prime directive.
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
I wholly endorse this post.
You guys have drifted off topic... comparing Picard & Kirk, debating the prime directive.
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
You're right, of course. But it's hard to sit on the sidelines when your favorite Trek series and captain are being criticized. Not that some of the criticisms aren't justified, but being the TNG and Picard fan that I am, I have to jump to their defense.
I just don't agree with this idea that TOS is superior to TNG because it introduced us to the Trek universe. It may have laid the groundwork for later Trek incarnations, but I honestly don't believe that's enough for it to be considered the best. TNG took what was already established, added to it, and IMO made it fresh, more fun, and a lot more interesting.
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion (as much as we may disagree with one another).
You guys have drifted off topic... comparing Picard & Kirk, debating the prime directive.
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
You're right, of course. But it's hard to sit on the sidelines when your favorite Trek series and captain are being criticized. Not that some of the criticisms aren't justified, but being the TNG and Picard fan that I am, I have to jump to their defense.
I just don't agree with this idea that TOS is superior to TNG because it introduced us to the Trek universe. It may have laid the groundwork for later Trek incarnations, but I honestly don't believe that's enough for it to be considered the best. TNG took what was already established, added to it, and IMO made it fresh, more fun, and a lot more interesting.
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion (as much as we may disagree with one another).
Everyone gets a little short when their version of Trek is under attack.
You guys have drifted off topic... comparing Picard & Kirk, debating the prime directive.
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
You're right, of course. But it's hard to sit on the sidelines when your favorite Trek series and captain are being criticized. Not that some of the criticisms aren't justified, but being the TNG and Picard fan that I am, I have to jump to their defense.
I just don't agree with this idea that TOS is superior to TNG because it introduced us to the Trek universe. It may have laid the groundwork for later Trek incarnations, but I honestly don't believe that's enough for it to be considered the best. TNG took what was already established, added to it, and IMO made it fresh, more fun, and a lot more interesting.
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion (as much as we may disagree with one another).
Everyone gets a little short when their version of Trek is under attack.
Very true.
Thanks for joining in the discussion. We may not agree on everything, but nonetheless I enjoyed reading and responding to your posts. That's part of the reason I love Trek so much. It's such a large and diverse franchise, so there's plenty for us fans to discuss.
You neglected the third option, not being am empire, not forcing your will upon other cultures. Whether you like it nor not, the Federation is not an empire, the Federation does not forcefully relocate another people and annex their planet just because the Romulans or Klingons could get their hands on it otherwise.
This is not a matter of opinion, of discussing sophisticated details and fancy interpretations of Trek. That the Federation is not an empire but a peaceful democratic union is a fact in TOS and TNG.
By the way, stop playing the victim. Calling you what you are, an imperialist, is not name calling.
I am stilling waiting for your explanation of why the Ba'ku and Picard erred so tremendously. Wanna join your imperialist friend Billy or wanna actually use the thing between your skull in order to realize how totally wrong you have been?
You mistake hyperbole for not using euphemisms, not to mention that your extermination scenario (is this Trek or Doctor Who?) is merely meant to be pathetic excuse for imperialism. The Federation doesn't annex territory, simple as that.
I can merely repeat myself, your Federation has nothing to do with the actually existing Federation and more with the Terran Empire. I have no interest in talking about your fantasies; there are people who get paid to do such stuff. I am here to talk about Trek.
I can merely repeat myself, your Federation has nothing to do with the actually existing Federation and more with the Terran Empire. I have no interest in talking about your fantasies; there are people who get paid to do such stuff. I am here to talk about Trek.
How often do I have to repeat that your wet dreams of conquering the universe are your wet dreams and totally unrelated to Star Trek? You can ask as many stupid questions as you want to, the answer will always be the same. The UFP is not the empire you wish it to be.
That's not at issue. What to do with the Ba'ku is? So are you gonna move them, commit massive forces to protect them or throw them to the wolves? Are you willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of Federation lives if someone attempts to take the metaphasic radiation by force?
Not a hard mental exercise for most of us...
This is a good point. In fact, if I recall the episode "Journey's End", the reason the Native American tribe was removed from their land was because the Cardassians had been given it in a treaty. The Federation could have allowed them to stay there, but they couldn't have guaranteed their safety once the Cardassians were in control, so they removed them in order to protect them. Similarly, this could be part of the reason why the Federation wanted to remove the Baku from their home. If they had not, the Klingons, Romulans, or for that matter the Dominion could have eradicated the Baku people and harnessed the power of their planet. So, in order to prevent this from happening, and also to conveniently harness the power of the Baku planet (
), they decided to send the Enterprise . This is all speculation, of course. I do wish that the possibility of other factions conquering the Baku homeworld had been further explored in the film.We're waaaay off topic right now, but since we're having a good discussion let's just keep it going.
I see two options, either you don't assist them unless they ask for your help or you make a deal with them, military protection for studying the radiation. What you do not do is forcefully relocate them and annex their planet for an ally like So'na who shares none of your values and stabs you in the back at the first chance.
I still totally fail to understand why you advocate the latter. So enlighten me, why do you advocate imperialism?
Apples and oranges. The folks at the Cardassian border are Federation citizens whereas the Ba'ku are not.This is a good point. In fact, if I recall the episode "Journey's End", the reason the Native American tribe was removed from their land was because the Cardassians had been given it in a treaty. The Federation could have allowed them to stay there, but they couldn't have guaranteed their safety once the Cardassians were in control, so they removed them in order to protect them. Similarly, this could be part of the reason why the Federation wanted to remove the Baku from their home. If they had not, the Klingons, Romulans, or for that matter the Dominion could have eradicated the Baku people and harnessed the power of their planet. So, in order to prevent this from happening, and also to conveniently harness the power of the Baku planet (
We're waaaay off topic right now, but since we're having a good discussion let's just keep it going.
You sacrifice tens of thousands of Federation lives to protect them if necessary, but you don't take the shortcut the Admiral tried to and extort it from them by using an evil faction.
I'm going to regret engaging in this, but...
1. so you think property rights are more important than medical benefits for billions?(which is what this debate comes down to)
2. it's not a Baku planet, they're not even a real civilization, they're an artificial village that broke off from a REAL civilization, and they're in UFP space. they didn't even originate from that planet.
3. the Son'a have just as much right to the planet as the Baku
the Baku have no legal or ethical ground to stand on.
I actually advocate the common sense solution. The one that allows the Ba'ku to survive as a culture without forcing the Federation to commit massive resources or lives. It's what I alluded to earlier about certain situations not fitting a rule written by someone at Starfleet Command.
As far as being allies with the S'ona, the only way for values to escape your borders is for you to communicate and interact with those that don't share them.
Your description fits the US. Broke off from a real civilisation, Europe, didn't originate in America.
Tell me whether you actually live in the US such that I can invade your country, take it from you, put you in a far worser place where you die much sooner and then tell you with a smug smiling that it will be for the benefit of millions.
Ant this means concretely what?
Similar threads
