He didn't go through with it. Unlike Roslin on more than one occasion.
Which era do you prefer, the 23rd or 24th Century?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
24th century always seemed like a boring time to live. It's also not very believable.
23rd at least feels like it could be humanity's future.
23rd at least feels like it could be humanity's future.
The 23rd. The 24th is a little too bland in comparison. The 23rd century was a really happening place.
I'll vote for post-Nemesis 24th Century.
Faster ships; more places to go. More people to see. The Beta Quadrant seems ripe for adventure. Now that the Rommies went BOOM.
Faster ships; more places to go. More people to see. The Beta Quadrant seems ripe for adventure. Now that the Rommies went BOOM.
Archer went a little nuts in season 3. As well as this he...He put an Osaarian in an airlock and began to depressurize it to make the Osaarian talk.
Had a clone of Trip made just to harvest organs
Attacked and pirated a random ship, stealing their warp drive
Barely noticed his first officer having a breakdown
Destroyed an unarmed Xindi communications outpost
Attempted to fly a kamikaze mission in a shuttle full of explosives into the Xindi weapon
(After the above two were discovered and he was captured, he then attempted to negotitate
)
Suck a mine on the Xindi military leader and blew him to bits (which was admttedly justified and incredibly cool)
Attacked and pirated a random ship, stealing their warp drive
Barely noticed his first officer having a breakdown
Destroyed an unarmed Xindi communications outpost
Attempted to fly a kamikaze mission in a shuttle full of explosives into the Xindi weapon
(After the above two were discovered and he was captured, he then attempted to negotitate
)Suck a mine on the Xindi military leader and blew him to bits (which was admttedly justified and incredibly cool)
My favorite series is DS9 and I kind of enjoy that era a bit more (if only cause sometimes it is hard to watch the rather dated TOS). So I'll vote 24th century.
But I definitely agree with those that said the 23rd century seemed more...adventurous. Has a bit more spirit and drive to it. Truly felt like it was the unknown out there.
I feel one thing TNG did bad was kind of sanitize the Trekverse to an absurd level. Now it feels a bit more rigid sadly.
But I definitely agree with those that said the 23rd century seemed more...adventurous. Has a bit more spirit and drive to it. Truly felt like it was the unknown out there.
I feel one thing TNG did bad was kind of sanitize the Trekverse to an absurd level. Now it feels a bit more rigid sadly.
Nah, you're fine in the 23rd - when holodeck technology was first introduced.
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/practical-joker-the
The 24th Century, because the starships have Holo-decks.
Can you imagine living on a starship without a Holo-deck? One has to remember that space voyages usually consists of long periods of inactivities enroute where a change of scenery would be a welcome respite from the monotony.
What they did during TOS was have shore leave on various planets they passed along the way. They also occasionally visited a starbase or space station for R&R too.
The Enterprise (NCC 1701) had a rec room with holotech as chronicled in the episode The Practical Joker.
I'll go with the later version, It was still glitchy by the 24th century.
Q: Is this question about what century you find the most entertaining or the one you'd rather live in? Because those are very different questions.
I mean, I'm a big PLANET OF THE APES fan, but that doesn't mean I want to live there.
Not even if you were a gorilla?
And it tried to kill you every other season . . ..
That is true, but the holodecks would serve quite well for leisure time during the voyage.
Child: "Daddy, what alien planets did you visit?"
Adult: "None honey, but occasional I went to the make believe room."
I would think that would be true for most of the crew. I mean, think about it. Not every crewmember would be assigned to an away team in exploring a planet.
Crewmates assigned to running the ship would not be despensed in such a manner, and thus the "experience" of exploring a strange alien world would not be in their resume.
Of course, I can never understand why it is customary for the Captain of the ship and key personnels to be the ones to lead the away team. When dealing with the unknown, a science team should be sent down, but as it is, we should be surprise that there isn't an expected high turnover of captains in Starfleet by this practise alone.
But I digress.
Probably standard policy to take only important characters with character shields after the redshirt massacres of the 23rd century.
Although humorous, it does convey a point. A Captain that exposes himself to risk, since it is the reason why they are out there, would be setting the example for the crew.
Except for combat situations in saving the majority of the crew on the ship, it would be wise to avoid the image of treating the crew as expendable assets for the sake of accomplishing an exploratory mission in Starfleet.
There would be a necessity for maintaining the loyalty of the crew as well as gaining new recruits when there is no "us vs them" mentality on the ship.
Similar threads
