Picard got pwned.*
Picard always has the last laugh.
Picard got pwned.*
She's the boss of a Romulan spy.
I'd be curious, actually, to see a list of those admirals. There were lots of "bad" admirals on TNG and DS9. But not all of them were bad in the same way. Nacheyev, in "Descent" for example, seemed to have very dubious morals, but I don't think she was power hungry or "evil" per se. Similarly with Admiral Ross. With Dougherty it was more blatant, but like Nacheyev, he too seemed motivated by some kind of greater good, at least as he perceived it, which doesn't excuse his actions but it helps explain his motivation.
In short, I think all these admirals seemed fairly believable. They didn't seem like the stereotypical empty villain of modern Trek.
No, it should be harder. It's a FEDERATION. The EU is not. It has a unified government, the EU does not. The analogy is a state leaving the US.
You're probably right that on paper it should be hard for a Federation member to leave. But because of how drastically different it is for neighboring states to secede vs a planet light years away to leave, in pratical terms, it could be easy for a planet to cut off ties to the Federation.
So there's a new clip from the third episode that I found with Hugh in it and
He's definitely on the cube, and he seems to be working there. He calls the (maybe) dead borg as "nameless" and knows who Soji is. He could be working under cover, but I can't tell now.
''Lieutenant Rizzo' calls her an ally in a later scene, not a boss or superior, just 'ally'.She's the boss of a Romulan spy.
You’re assuming her gender now? That’s not very PC.![]()
I never implied she should be "cuddly". She took explicit exception to Picard not sacrificing a human life to destroy trillions of Borg. There are those in the present-day world who think that sacrificing an innocent child to rid us of Al-Qaeda would be worth it. There are those of us who don't. No question on where Trump stands. That was the point of the comparison.
I don't know. The way he's talking to her really makes me think he's the director.
There's nothing wrong with reusing names, accidental or otherwise."Zhat Vash"! Does nobody check anymore to see if the are reusing names?
"cheeky feckers!"![]()
Nechayev seemed to me to be one of the most realistic characters on the show.
Her actions affected millions if not billions of lives. She took that seriously. Her decisions—agree or disagree with them—were a result of her consideration for what would be best for Starfleet, the Federation, and every person affected by her decision.
She recognized there were two separate things to consider in each situation: the process and the results. Sometimes, you can not have the process you want while getting the results you desire. So, should she stick to a scrupulously moral, aboveboard process, even if it will likely lead to disastrous results? Or should she focus on getting a good outcome, even if to get that good outcome, she has to use amoral or immoral means?
Those are hard decisions and hard questions. I wouldn’t want to have to make them. You constantly have to balance the process with the results. *Is* one human life worth it in order to destroy a threat that has killed billions in the past and will undoubtedly kill billions in the future?
Nobody should have to answer that question, but in reality, someone does. And it’s Nechayev, and she actually seems to grapple with the questions in order to give them thoughtful answers. Is directly killing one person ok? No, of course not. But is indirectly killing billions because of your own refusal to act a good thing either? No.
And Nechayev seems to weigh all the factors and make a decision. And while she certainly wants to “look good” (who doesn’t?) she doesn’t make decisions based on her own self-aggrandizement, as we have seen other admirals in the Trek world do, but rather her perception of what is best for everyone.
All of our best, most revered leaders throughout history have had to make morally questionable decisions. Is it ok to send a battalion to do a feint attack, one that is tantamount to a suicide mission, in order to draw the enemy away and leave you to strike in strength elsewhere? What if it wins you the war and ends the fighting—does that make up for sending 1000 people directly to their death? Is it ok to covertly kill a member of the royal family if not doing so will lead to a civil war? What if that person is an innocent child? Then again, how many innocent men, women, and children would be killed in a war?
There’s not one right answer to these questions.
Nechayev was hard without being heartless, ruthless without ever losing her morality. Of course, as a superior officer, she often didn’t show any of the agony of her thought process (and nor should she) but here and there, over her appearances in TNG and DS9, there were hints that she struggled with her decisions and questioned herself.
Far from being a “bad” Admiral, Nechayev was one of the best.
Just the only thing about that that wouldn't make sense is that he's been trying to protect his borg (the actor said so), so why would he allow others to be experimented on? Unless he has a deal with the Romulans for protection??
Well, Kennelly was more a sucker, led on a leash by the Cardassians. He had no obvious traits of desire for personal power or wealth, or a personal agenda, or strange political views, or general offensive manners. He just happened to think that it was the right thing to do to hit terrorists hard instead of playing fair with them.
Corrupt Admirals? Difficult to find in Trek where there's little to bribe them with. Dougherty turned down an envelope full of eternal youth!
Timo Saloniemi
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.