The Horta might disagree.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Cestus III has entered the chat.
I both of those cases though it was the results of misunderstandings. I assume they worked things out because the Horta agreed to work with the miners ad the Cestus III colony still existed in the 24th century.
Not before lives were lost.
Sherman's planet. Organia. Even Tyeee's planet.
I know but you had people from both sides die because of it. The important thing in a case like that is to make peace so no more lives will be lost in the future.
I'd argue that it is. And if you disagree I will NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER!*
(* No, it's not literally Star Trek.)
Delight?
No.
Pain then.
Those planets weren't colonized. Well the Klingons wanted to do it. Klingons were for sure into colonizing and conquering occupied worlds. Granted Starfleet has had some rogue Admirals and a few rogue Captains but they aren't suppose to represent the Federations main goals when it comes to space exploration.
The Federation would immediately attempt colonization in reaction to Klingon expansion.
What makes you think that? They might want to help protect those planets from the Klingons but that is not the same. The prime directive alone would prevent any of that from happening.
Then why are they developing Sherman's planet in direct competition to the Klingons?
It's soft colonization in some ways, often well meaning but also in response to the other powers.
De groovy!What about infinite Deee-Lite?
There is is a difference between being malicious and being gentle. The Klingons aren't gentle. To even compare the Federation in this to the Klingon Empire, is disingenuous at best.
Because the alternative is that the Federation collapses, in total, and the Klingons colonize the now vacated worlds that were once populated. In other words what some here are advocating is self extinction...
Is the Federation perfect? No!
Are the Klingons perfect? About as far from prefect as it is possible to get.
This is one of the major problems with a small universe
In other words we haven't seen the Federation as of yet. Small universe, remember?
The Federation is an idealized version of the United States. Keep in mind that in the 1960s, there was still a great deal of work to be done. The Federation had far less work to do.
Because the alternative is that the Federation collapses, in total, and the Klingons colonize the now vacated worlds that were once populated. In other words what some here are advocating is self extinction...
Is the Federation perfect? No!
Are the Klingons perfect? About as far from prefect as it is possible to get.
This is one of the major problems with a small universe
In other words we haven't seen the Federation as of yet. Small universe, remember?
The Federation is an idealized version of the United States. Keep in mind that in the 1960s, there was still a great deal of work to be done. The Federation had far less work to do.
Yeah apparently so
I guess, if you say so...but I wasn't trying to get a reaction out of anyone. I was only trying to see if anyone else agreed with me. I genuinely love The Orville. Its the closest thing to Trek without being called Trek, only with some arguably crass humour but all of that was by design. And yes the humour in Season 1 was a bit much and made the show a little awkward, but it improved a lot after that. It was created by the same guy who made Family Guy.. exactly what did some people expect? After season 1 the majority of storylines focused more on the characters and the relationship between the different Alien races. I understand that some people don't like Seth's sense of humour and thats fine, but IMO you shouldn't let that define your opinion of the show. If anything just skip season 1, just like people say regarding TNG. Its miles better than Discovery or the Section 31 movie and the majority of folks on here refuse to acknowledge that the Section 31 movie exists and is in fact canon which unfortunately isn't a topic that can be debated, even if many people try. The benefit of The Orville is its in a completely seperate Universe and canon if its own. Its similarities to Star Trek only help its appeal and the shows ability to tell the same kind of stories and teach a modern audience about moral and ethical issues in the 21st century.
Yes, which is why I don't call it Star Trek. That's all. I can appreciate the affection people have towards it but the comparison game feels unnecessary to me.
The fact that McFarlane made it to be the Star Trek series he wasn't officially allowed to make rather invites the comparison. It's the most expensive legal fan film ever made.
And if it was Star Trek it would be panned.
Similar threads
