What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

What I'm talking about is creating Science fiction from science theory because it gives a hint of plausibility plus if you're incorporating the theory into science fiction tales, even a failed one, you stand a chance of that theory finally being achieved. Because "they" (short alien being) are working on it.
A decade passes and...
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-broke-the-speed-of-light-with-pulses-inside-hot-plasma

 

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Theory has a specific meaning in science and it's not just "random idea that might or might not turn out to be wrong", and theories evolve over time in response to new discoveries. "Incorporating them into science fiction" has nothing to do with whether there's a chance of your theory being "achieved".

That's reads as an application of a phenomenon we've known about for decades where interference patterns between waves can seem to move much faster than the waves themselves. Also nothing to do with neutrinos and CERN per your earlier post.

Sorry, I'm not wishing to sound negative, but it really sounds as though you don't really understand scientific methodology. These things you're describing don't increase the likelihood of warp drive any more than salad being green makes increases the likelihood of there being little green men.

 

My opinion: this but Star Trek.

 

More thought than you, apparently.

I'm not sure what your point is? The procedures described in the article don't really tally with being able to talk your surgeon through your own brain surgery as he/she performs it?

I repeat, Star Trek is full of silly science. You just have to go with it and it's certainly not something new.

 

Isn't deriding the Kelvinverse for being the way it is a little like a professional swimmer deriding his kid's wading pool for being too shallow? One's introduction to swimming need not be "dad throws you into the deep end and you gotta paddle or die". And even adults like to play/sit in the shallow end sometimes.

And if you're gonna have a story/characters that for non-Lit readers, exists only in the span of 3 two hour films, you can't deepen them too much AND have all the science AND all the philosophical quandaries, at least not enough to make everyone feel like they've watched a whole series, with its deep worldbuilding dives, and long pauses for thought, and big questions.

 

We rewatched Star Trek: Beyond yesterday, and I have some possibly-controversial opinions.

1. It's a good movie. I found it engaging and enjoyable. I was never bored and was never tossed out of my suspension of disbelief.

2. Chris Pine makes a great Kirk.

3. Watching *any* Enterprise get ripped into pieces and destroyed is painful.

For those with access to deleted scenes, is there a fuller explanation for why Jaylah speaks English?

 

I don’t think there’s anything more than was stated in the movie.

I suppose one could believe that she bothered to learn English to better figure out how to potentially repair/fly it away from Altmid; she may have wanted to understand what the “shouting” meant in the music, too.

 

I thought it was said or implied somewhere that she learned it from being aboard the Franklin all that time. I may be wrong…it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film.

 

Yeah, that’s what’s in the movie, I assumed @Commander Troi was asking if there was more detail in behind the scenes material.

 

None of those things are controversial. And I will crawl over broken glass to see Pine play Kirk again.

The Beyond destruction of the Enterprise is the only time that a) it was an extended plot point and b) we really got to mourn her. It's almost an homage to Enterprise!

While I have problems with Beyond (not every bad guy has to be "Of the Federation's Own Making". What is this, Mission: Impossible?) it's probably my favorite of the three. And it isn't Into Darkness.(Go to 4:30.)

 

Best Kelvin movie. By far. And I like all of them.

 

Gonna come in hot here: I disagree with Picard's decision to not infect the Borg with an M.C. Escher painting in the episode "I, Borg."

Here's why: the Borg are not people. They used to be, but assimilation is repeatedly described in Trek as a removal of individuality and "humanity," for lack of a less Earth-centric term. When one is assimilated, one becomes an instrument of the collective, just as a fingernail or skin cell is part of the larger collective. Shooting a Borg drone is no different than clipping a fingernail or trimming a hair.

Taking a Borg on-board, nursing it back to health, and giving it a pet name was a completely unnecessary risk, and it was disappointing how quickly Picard folded after talking to Dr. Crusher's pet Borg.

I know I'm ignoring the moral/meaning of the episode, but you'd think that the man whose very soul was ripped from him would choose to prevent countless others across the galaxy from having to go through what he went through.

 

Yeah, I get twitchy when people refer to wiping out the Borg as genocide. Or a bad idea.

 

And that justifies killing trillions of enslaved sentient lifeforms?

 

Evidence suggests that individuality is not irreversibly lost, not even after decades of assimilation. See Picard, Seven of Nine, the ex-drones from Unity, or the three drones of Survival Instinct as examples. After they were liberated from the collective, they returned to their former identities. Sometimes it even surfaces while assimilated, see Unimatrix Zero.

So even when one accepts that 'borg are not people' as an argument for killing them all, the fact remains that these zombies still have their individualities, just repressed.

 

What about the potential enslaved/assimilated trillions?
Actually assimilation is far far worse than enslavement.

 

Trek has been extremely inconsistent in how it depicted the Borg.

Just like everything else.

 

Yeah and while people sit around and try to figure out how to "de-assimilate" people billions more get victimized in the most brutal way possible.
So, no, if they stumbled upon a way to end the Borg fast and definitely, they should use it.

I'm also in favour of destroying as many Crystalline Entities as possible.

There is just a point, in my opinion, where a threat has such proportions that it should be ended.

 

The Borg exist at the expense of all other intelligent life. There's no such thing as peaceful coexistence with them. Heck, even the kinder, gentler Borg Cooperative started by Riley Frazier in the Voyager episode "Unity" reverted to form and chose to make Chakotay into a drone when it became convenient to do so.

There's a story about scorpions and frogs that comes to mind, but I can't recall the details...

 

^ I'm not saying they shouldn't do that if there is no other solution, I simply do not like the 'Borg aren't people' rationalization to make it easy on themselves.

Instead, they should acknowledge that they're going to kill trillions of enslaved people that had their individualities suppressed but that still exist somewhere, be fully aware of the atrocity they're going to commit to prevent still greater horrors from happening in the future, be prepared to live with that moral responsibility for the rest of their lifes , and then push the button. But 'We haven't really killed people' doesn't do it for me. They have, in my book, even if there was a good reason for it.