Yeah, I have the comic. I'm just so sick of the Borg that I choose to 100% ignore it.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Both.
Mining equipment can involve explosives. Has for a while.
Also, a lot of chemistry. It's not like Romulan mining is shown to be safe in Nemesis so having high yield explosives to break asteroids or planetoids down faster wouldn't surprise me.
Quark is DS9's best character. The show has lots and lots of great characters but Quark is the best one of them all. He is so relatable and human it's hard not to like him, even when he is doing is schemes and being sleazy. Also given added depth by not being cool with murder, even if profit can be had and really loving Rom, even he is always calling him a idiot.
I’m not going to deny that Kirk and Spock are monoliths of the Trek World.
No character has approached that level, I can’t agree with. Some TNG characters at least approached that level in the heyday of the show and to some extent various VOY characters too.
I’d say Picard, Data, LaForge, maybe even Worf were (and to some extent still are) truly iconic and I’d say the same for Janeway and Seven.
What Kirk and Spock (and TOS) have that the others don’t is longevity.
It’s one thing to be a cultural icon. They come and go. Kirk and Spock are in that same sphere as Sherlock Holmes, Dracula etc. now. They are enduring cultural icons.
Not to argue with you. I agree with the spirit of your post, just not the letter. :-)
I think you’ve wandered into the wrong thread. That’s not even slightly controversial, unless you are Fireproof.
Last edited:
Oooff...well that's controversial to me. Beyond Garak, Quark is the most insufferable character in DS9 and yet treated as though he is likable by the other characters.
Because you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it......I might change the title of this thread to 1001001’s True and Correct Star Trek Opinions…
It would have been better if Naradda were simply a warship.
The retroactive continuity of Borg tech is convoluted and smells high of CYA.
The retroactive continuity of Borg tech is convoluted and smells high of CYA.
I don’t disagree. Generations has a lot more to it than people generally credit, and Insurrection was an actual “come to the planet, get in trouble, resolve it” Star Trek story.
The Borg tech is only in a non-canon comic (as all comics are, regardless of author). Going by the movie itself, it’s just a 24th-century mining ship, and just that is enough to devastate 23rd-century ships.
I love Generations.
It’s visually magnificent, starting with the champagne bottle flying through space.
Indeed. The explanation is in the text of the film. It aren't that hard.
Futuristic mining vessel always worked for me.
I’ll never be able to figure out how they were able to make it look cheaper than TWOK and TSFS.
Thank you for walking into my trap.Futuristic mining vessel always worked for me.
What current commercial vessel is capable of utterly destroying an ironclad--a battleship or ram--from the 1870s?
Ome carrying high yield explosives for mining.
How do they put them in contact with the warship, particularly swarming as the Naradda does?
Pneumatic catapult.
The difference being that deep space huge with many obstacles larger and tougher than an ironclad. Like six-hundred mile asteroids.
Similar threads
- Locked
