What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

Neither Spock nor McCoy were with him when he died. So...you could interpret his premonition in different ways.

 

Lorca should've smoked.

 

Kirk wasn't alone. That bald British guy was with him.

Also, I will never understand why some fans put SO much stock in that line. Kirk wasn't psychic.

 

He died saving the Enterprise-B, where he was alone.

Then he died again.

I'm having this awesome cake right now and eating it too. Well, not really. It's bread. But we'll pretend it's cake...

 

Kirk died thousands of times, alone, his body ripped apart molecule by molecule, inside of a transporter buffer.

 

Plus he forgot that he had a brother, so why not that line as well?

 

Seems like bromance is a virtual requirement for most Star Trek shows... bromance being defined as a close relationship between two guys who have no apparent same-sex orientation. It's love, but not erotic.

TOS: Kirk/Spock
TNG: Data/Geordi
DS9: Bashir/O'Brien
VOY: Tom/Harry
ENT: Trip/Malcolm or Trip/Archer
LD: Rutherford/Billups

I guess DSC is the exception, because it has romance (Stamets/Culber) instead of bromance.

 

DISCO has soromance. Burnham/Tilly. Burnham/Georgiou.

 

No same-sex orientation... that we know of.

 

1. Isn't that what I said, SB?

2. So "soromance" is bromance's female equivalent? You learn something new every day...

 

You should know that even the most inconsequential, offhand onscreen remarks, especially jokes, are to be regarded as absolute, deadly serious Qanon, excuse me, Canon graven in stone like the Ten Commandments.

Robert

 

No idea. I just made the word up for the post. Let me google....
Looks like other people came up with the same portmanteau.

 

It works better than "sissy-mance".

 

No comment.

 

I fail to see the contradiciton there. Kirk always felt that he would die alone, but like many humans he inaccurately said that he always knew knew he would die alone, even though you can't know something whch isn't true. Sometimes it may take thousnd sof years to find out whther someone merely thought he kneow or actually knew osmething.

Writing a story where someone's premonitions come true is bad science and thus bad science fiction.

 

The incident is overwrought. Way too much is being invested in a throwaway line. In a previous film.

 

I don't even know where to begin to point out the holes in this statement, especially in the context of that line and that movie.

 

I think it depends on the type of science fiction. Generally, in 'hard' science fiction, I'd agree that the quality of the science (even if somewhat speculative) is very important. In 'soft' science fiction (such as Trek, where it is more window dressing than the heart of the story, and where it might even be labeled phantasy instead), it matters a great deal less, imho.

 

Honestly I don't care all that much as long as a story is well written and makes internal sense.
Though saying a story is "bad science" or "bad science fiction" because Kirk says "I always knew I'd die alone" is laughable. A lot of people, especially in a field of work like Kirk's, would are worried about dying alone/without a family/far away from heir friends and loved ones. And when he did "die alone" then it was just confirmation bias, not some magical premonition.

 

What kind of "mance" is there between a gay guy and a straight woman as in one sitcom whose title eludes me right now?