Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by NCC-73515, Sep 9, 2021.
Which completely ignores my point.
Cool. Irrelevant but cool.
I was referring to how even the vilest humans in history still have followers.
Singh is just too common a name to be assigned to the dust bin. Noonian seems popular, at least in the Soong family. Khan also is the “best “ of the tyrants with Scott and Kirk admiring him, much to Spock’s dismay. So his rep is slightly better than Hitler or Stalin.
About as likely as the ambassador of Vulcan being picked up by the ship his son serves on or the head of a top secret research project being the ex of the captain of the only ship able to respond to a crisis at her lab.
I still don't think she's related given her hyphenated name and that Khan's isn't hyphenated in any timeline we know of. But knowing how bad some of the Kurtzman writers are I would never be completely shocked.
I wasn't arguing that it should be used to resolve plots. In fact, I hate how they used it as the resolution to that episode. But I was just pointing out that it has canonically happened.
If it were up to me, transporters would never have existed in Star Trek because they provide an easy way out for way too many problems.
Khan's last name was probably Singh, as he was a Sikh (all male Sikhs are Singh, all females are Kaur). La'an's surname being "Noonien-Singh" makes me think she's descended, if not from Khan, then from some Khan worshipping cult or something.
She might not be an Augment, but has Augmented DNA in her background.
I'll be interested in seeing where they go with the La'an character, especially if she's an Augment. In one of the SNW threads, I mentioned I created an Augment character for a thing I was working on. In my story/pitch/proposal the character (Maggie Garcia) was assigned to the Enterprise during April's tenure as part on an experimental program to mainstream Augments. I tried to "flip the script" and make her a shy and awkward type. Though with enhanced intelligence and strength. I also put her at communications as sort of anti-Uhura. My heavy handed hints would lead anyone to realize she will eventully become Number One.
How does it ignore your point?
Largely because I do not care about what counters there are to the technology. To me, the weaponizing of transporter technology, either with the sniper rifle, or mass extinguishing of armies, is not a very Star Trek idea. It takes a useful technology and makes it something to be feared. That isn't interesting, that isn't enjoyable it is not something I find very appealing, even if it is canon, or a logical development.
It's one of these lines of "it doesn't feel right" that some times goes without explanation. We all have our lines of what makes Star Trek Star Trek. Just like to you a ship is a character. To me, a transporter weapon is not Star Trek. Mileage will vary.
That's why I do think she's related.
Exactly. Noonien was Khan's middle name but Singh is too common a surname on its own to mean anything (and it would be Kaur for a woman in any case) that the best way to draw an obvious link between the characters is to hyphenate "Noonien-Singh". There's plenty of time in three centuries for it to have become a surname in itself.
Fair enough; for me, using tech in innovative ways, using it to counter other tech is the foundation of modern warfare and technological advancement based on human history.
Using existing tech in Star Trek, and re-using it in brand new ways to solve problems or as weapons is a fundamental and logical development progression in Star Trek that makes perfect sense.
If the writers can't think on that level, I find them to be dull, insipid, and not really clever or realistic/thinking of futuristic advancements.
Hell it's not even realistic since humans will figure ways to repurpose things eventually.
Every piece of technology that can be used for the most mundane things, can be used to solve problems if you're clever enough.
It only takes creativity and a little brain power to repurpose one piece of tech for another purpose, be it mundane problem solving tool or as a weapon.
And for me, it doesn't feel right if the writers don't use tech to it's full potential.
Using tech as a weapon is not innovative. That's like saying that creating a better gun is innovative because it uses metals to make a lighter frame. That's not Star Trek to me at all. That's just real life.
Boy, I feel bad for the writers constantly. To be insulted daily for lack of creativity.
But giving the gun the ability to physically disappear and reappear the bullet and start it's kinetic path is true innovation IMO.
Miniaturizing the Transporter to work with the Barrel of a Gun is innovative.
Using advanced Optical technology that lets you see through walls and pick your target is creative use of technology.
They should up there game then and think about how all that tech can be used in more creative ways.
Make sure you tell them how to do that.
Miniaturizing the Transporter to work with the Barrel of a Gun is innovative. Agree to disagree. The optical tech is great. Miniaturized transporter is a poor use if it's only application is in a weapon. Innovation to kill is not inspiring.
Using advanced Optical technology that lets you see through walls and pick your target is creative use of technology
Remember that there were worse tyrants after Khan, like Li Kwan and Col. Green. Much like Napoleon benefits from comparison with Hitler (lack of genocide helps), Khan's reign looks much better compared to later tyrants.
It's not it's only use, the transporter is used in replicators as well as ablative hull generation.
In DeadStop, the Replicator was used by the Automatic Repair Station to help automate and repair the vessel by dematerializing any rubble and rematerializing new parts to help automatic assembly of the vessel in record time.
What would've took Earth StarFleet Months to repair too only a few days for the Automatic Repair Station.
Again, that wasn't my point. This is generalizing to say the transporter is useful, when that is already known. The sniper rifle use is the objection I have to the term "innovation."
Undoubtedly the transporter is an amazing piece of tech. As a weapon, it is not amazing. The above listed examples are unrelated to miniaturizing the transporter tech regarding the weapon.
Why is that not innovative?
It's taking old tech (Projectile Launcher) and pairing it with new tech (Transporter)
Along with advanced see through wall scopes, allows innovative use of a old weapon in new ways.
I guess in the strictest definition of innovation that is correct.
Completely worthless but innovative nonetheless.
How else are you going to innovate?
That's your personal value judgement, there are other communities who find weapons tech innovation completely worthwhile.
So, Star Trek is inspiring, is innovative, when it comes up with cool weapon tech? Good to know.
You're right. I'm wrong. Congratulations.
Separate names with a comma.