What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

I have to completely disagree about Tony Todd being cast wrong there. My opinion may be biased, but here's why.

Back in 2006 (my first DragonCon), he was one of the first actors I got to meet. Truly a wonderful man to talk to... he's actually bigger in real life than on screen, if you can imagine that. Big guy, big heart. We talked for probably close to a half hour. He shared a personal story about himself and why he accepted that role. I always loved the episode and it makes me cry every single time I rewatch, but hearing his story made me appreciate what he did in "THE VISITOR" even more so.



Back on topic, I have a controversial opinion...

In some ways, based on "BEFORE AND AFTER", Chakotay would have made a better captain. Specifically, two things come to mind.

First, promotions. Tuvok, Paris, and Kim were all promoted. Chakotay seemed to understand that despite them being decades from Starfleet, it still means something to people aboard that their good work gets recognized.

Second, according to dialogue from Linnis, there are doctors, plural, on board. From the beginning, there should have been training of more medical personnel on the ship. Besides the obvious need of variety for different missions, if The Doctor was damaged or destroyed, they would be screwed, medically. Clearly, Chakotay understood this very practical necessity. Even THE WALKING DEAD understood the need to have doctors train other people to be doctors.

 

I have to agree about Todd not being the right actor for the part...a fine actor probably but nothing connected him to Jake, for me at least.

 

As do I. Tony Todd was a big part of why that episode was so truly brilliant. Avery Brooks did his share as well, but Cirroc Lofton and Tony Todd were the emotional heart of it. The chemistry between him and Rachel Robinson, in the 25th century scenes, was good as well.

Your two reasons are entirely correct, and there are others as well. As a renegade himself, Chakotay would probably have handled the matter of the Equinox better. He certainly wouldn't have resorted to torture. And, he had the good sense to understand that the Borg were bad news.

Be that as it may, Janeway got a whole lot of stuff right. I don't know if any other captain could have accomplished what she did.

Indeed. As soon as Kes departed, another medical trainee should have been selected, in addition to Tom.

That's why another of Janeway's mistakes was to put up with the EMH's whining in "Latent Image". She should have told him simply that he was the only doctor on board, and they couldn't afford having him decompile himself. So the erased memory was staying erased, period, exclamation point. Put on your holographic big boy pants and DEAL WITH IT.

In all fairness, though, we don't know what Chakotay would have done in that instance.

 

Not to mention Janeway letting The Doctor leave in "VIRTUOSO". Only reason he stayed was because fandom on that planet was fickle. Definitely a bad call there. (Though I will say that episode really damages The Doctor's character.)

Janeway did get a lot right, and Mulgrew was great as her. I think if she went through what Chakotay did in "BEFORE AND AFTER" (The Doctor being offline for months), Janeway would have insisted on training more doctors.

 

I said hard, not impossible.

 

I think a good part of Janeway's mistake is pussy-footing for half the episode to begin with. Yes, I agree that there's a line where she has to say that the decision was made and he just has to live with it. But that requires an element of "Trust me, Doctor."

In "Clues, if Picard had asked Data, "Are you hiding information from me because doing so protects this ship and crew from harm?"

"Yes, sir."

"Lethal harm?"

"Yes, sir."

At this point, Picard is faced with a choice: go back, or trust Data. There's a decent chance he simply trusts Data and that's the end of it.

Janeway spends half of the episode, "What? Doctor, what? What are you talking about?" She didn't sit him down right away and tell him what she could. There was an incident. There was an incident that created a moral conundrum that your program could never have anticipated. The medical issue that you were faced with was resolved, but your program still couldn't resolve the issue.

This ship needs a doctor. You're it. To resolve the problem, I had the incident wiped from your memory, and it's going to stay that way because this ship needs a doctor. As that doctor, you have a responsibility to this crew, so I'm asking you as their doctor to trust me. We almost lost you to this once and we can't afford to take that chance again. Voyager can't afford to lose you as a doctor and we don't want to lose you as a friend.

Ask for trust. If he pushes it, then Janeway can hard line how ever she has to, but all she's doing is already agitating him and making him question his sanity.

 

Interesting you mention "Clues", because that episode is basically a complete inverse of "LATENT IMAGE". (Both of them had the teleplay done by Joe Menosky, coincidentally or not.)

Because Data acted suspiciously with all the clues around, it made Picard question him. And because everyone was acting suspicious around The Doctor, he questioned everything.

"Clues" is a great mystery, and I know it wouldn't have existed if Data simply said to Picard he was following orders, but that really was the simplest solution.

Same with "LATENT IMAGE"... had Janeway been honest from the jump, the entire episode wouldn't happen. It was the simplest solution.

Sometimes simplicity has to get thrown out the window to service an episode.

 

Another alternative is to add a new subroutine to the Doctor's triage program: if faced with a decision between two equally imperiled patients, and all standard triage subroutines are confounded, it is permissible to make a subjective decision. That way, if the Doc has to make a similar choice in the future, he can make it safely.

 

This, too. It all started because there was no escape hatch from the loop.

 

One of my favorite lines from the Trek franchise came from the "Star Trek Voyager" Season 3 episode, (3.02) "Flashback". And it came from Tuvok:

"Ever since I entered the Academy, I've had to endure the egocentric nature of humanity. You believe that everyone in the galaxy should be like you, that we should all share YOUR sense of humor and YOUR sense of values."

Unfortunately, the writers had Tuvok take back his words and "admit" he had been wrong. Which is another aspect of the franchise I have always disliked. Whenever a character - whether Human (like Michael Eddington) or not, make some unpleasant observation about Humanity or the Federation, they either had to admit they were wrong, be proven wrong or lectured by any of the Starfleet command officers. I still find this very irritating.

 

In DS9's "THE JEM'HADAR", Quark rightly put Sisko in his place when he said that humans were all about tolerance and understanding of other cultures but only if they reminded humans of themselves, and also let Sisko know that Ferengi history did not have the violent history humans did.

Sisko kept quiet because he knew Quark was right.

Another point in DS9's favor... they called out hypocrisy more often than the other shows.

 

Ah, but that's what's so brilliant about those scenes, things like Tuvok being disillusioned with humanity or Eddington comparing the Federation to the Borg or whatever are the writers way of expressing what they know to be truths about the Federation/Starfleet/humanity/the franchise. The bit about the characters then learning the "error" of their ways or get lectured accordingly was just lip service to Gene's Vision, which was expected in the 90s and the forms had to be obeyed.

 

How nice. I just like Tuvok's line a lot more.

 

Tuvok's line is good, too. I mention the Quark one because it's one of the few in the franchise where the hypocrisy is called out but there is no admitting they were wrong or some other form of backpedaling.

 

I think that scene was absolute bullcrap for three reasons;

1)What do past misdeeds of the human race have to do with Sisko or any human alive in the 24th century? Answer: zilch
2)I call bullshit on the Ferengi having a less violent history. That was the stupidest attempt to make the Ferengi look more sympathetic they ever did (okay, that and them apparently being ignorant of how much cash you can make off of substance addiction in Little Green Men) I especially call bullshit on the Ferengi never having had slaves. And one of their rules is "War is Good for Business"
3)It was extremely on the nose of the writers to have an alien to bring up slavery with the Trek main character who just happens to be African-American.

 

The Ferengi had slaves during that very era... they called them "females".

 

Exactly and a another episode says that Ferengi who go bankrupt become indentured servants, which isn't really all that much better.
Considering how similar in behaviour pretty much all the humanoid species in Trek are I'd be willing to bet that they all have just as much ugliness in their past as humanity, yes, even the Betazoid.

That whole scene is just a complete hack job when it comes to writing, an extremely stupid and nonsensical attempt to make the Ferengi more sympathetic to the audience.

 

The concentration camps and interstellar wars may very well not be a part of Ferengi history.

It's very possible that they have never fought an interstellar war, despite a Rule of Acquisition being "War is good for business." That rule states a simple fact. (Let's be real... war is good for business in many sectors of trade, most notably weapons and technology. And if resources are cut off, but you have the supply and the means to bring it on your own, then that business can dictate whatever price it wants.)

And concentration camps are very much a Nazi thing. Only humans had Nazis. (Not counting the Ekosians in "PATTERNS OF FORCE", since they were completely taught all Nazi things by John Gill. They never developed that on their own.)

Regarding slavery not existing in Ferengi history, Quark could be looking at his history with rose tinted glasses. What we consider slavery also may not mean the same thing to a Ferengi. For example, the only Ferengi we have seen that can be considered slaves are their women. While I agree that they are basically slaves, we have never seen evidence of them being forced into hard labor or similar physical burdens. They were, however, never allowed to leave the home, wear clothes, and earn profit. I view it as a form of slavery, but a lot of the other signs and types of slavery do not seem to be present with Ferengi women. (They can get a monthly stipend, which is an equivalent to a Social Security check for retirees. They are taught to read. They aren't forced to work outside or in fields or do any of the hard physical labor that historically is associated with slavery.)

I completely agree that Ferengi women are slaves at worst, and second class citizens at best. And I'm glad they got equal rights during DS9. My problem was how it went about in "PROFIT AND LACE".

We can never forget that when dialogue like that comes from a nonhuman character, they are speaking as an alien using their values and judgments. I think when people criticize lines like that, that fact is forgotten. It's unrealistic to expect all aliens to think like a human when they make comments and comparisons of that nature.

 

Yeah. That was a stinker of an episode in a badly done story arc. I agree that in the 90's, they couldn't really not have things change on Ferenginar, but they could have followed the rules set in "Angel One". Say what you want about that episode, Riker's final statement made sense.

According to "Rules of Acquisition", they actually aren't. But that's questionable, given that some degree of literacy is required in a technological society.

Multiple human cultures (including our own) facilities built for the mechanized containment and slaughter of non-sentient living creatures. The Nazis were the only ones who did it with humans, but that doesn't mean other cultures didn't have similar things... or worse.