They should perhaps have written a small scene of Q , right after he got punched by Sisko, being whisked away by the Prophets telling him "the Q tries to interfere with game. Why do you exist here?",
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
They should perhaps have written a small scene of Q , right after he got punched by Sisko, being whisked away by the Prophets telling him "the Q tries to interfere with game. Why do you exist here?",
You clearly have more knowledge of Alexander than me, I took my information wrongly from documentaries on the BBC. I bow to you on that.
Macedonia being on the border of ancient Greece does not make it Greece.
Greeks encompassing Macedonia based on convenience or a whim does not stand scrutiny.
Alexander was a Macedonian, conquering the known world for Macedonia (and mostly for himself), not for Greece.
I live in a country that borders England, I am definitely not English, whether the English consider it convenient or not.
Anyway, my controversial opinion as I've stated many times before on here, is that TNG is a load of claptrap, a real borefest.
The relationship is a bit more complicated than current national borders. Ancient Greece was a collection of city-states that were often at war with each other but would unite to fight common foes like Persia. Alexander the Great is the one who united all of Greece under one banner.
Macedonia is a region in modern Greece and encompasses the area of ancient Macedonia where Alexander was born.
There is also a country north of modern Greece that uses the name (North) Macedonia which was part of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and more recently Yugoslavia. Greece has never been happy with their "appropriation" of the name Macedonia, hence the qualifier North.
And the official name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a name that allows it to be internationally-recognized by countries that don't particularly like the nation calling itself Macedonia.
Good post, yeah I'm fully aware of the City State set up in ancient Greece, Sparta and Troy eg
And thanks for clearing up the recent development where Macedonia the country had added North to its name.
Alexander the Great likely would have called himself a Greek. The Ancient Makedonians had Greek style names, worshiped the Greek Gods and followed Greek culture and customs. Alexander himself was educated by Aristoteles.
Their conquest of Greece was in part motivated by their desire to be seen as one of the great cities of Greece, like Athens, Thebes and Sparta.
Once he had conquered a large part of his Empire Alexander actively promoted Greek culture across his lands, including a desire to merge Greek and Persian cultures. It was partially due to this that Hellenism ermerged and Greek culture started to dominate the Mediterranean sphere (especially in the East) until Rome showed up.
The Ancient Makedonians have nothing to do with the modern, Slavic Republic of Macedonia. The ancestors of modern Slavs lived somewhere else during that time.
Troy was not Greek and is fictional. The Troyan war possibly has some influence from a war that destroyed the Hittite City of Wilusa.
Just as a king of Sparta would have called himself [Insert name here] of Sparta. There was no unified Greece, so nobody could have called themselves "of Greece". They were a bunch of individual sub-cultures under the "Greek" banner so to say and even when they warred against each other the various Greek tribes saw each other as "better" and more civilizes as the Non-Greeks. And the Makedonians wanted into that Greek "club" so to say, while still being Macedonians. Just like the Athenians were Athenians while being Greeks too.
The name officially changed to North Macedonia in 2018 after the Prespa Treaty between Greece and FYRoM
I did not know that. Thanks!
The history of Greek culture was fascinating. Even though the Roman Empire conquered Greece militarily, Greece conquered Rome culturally and linguistically. So the real question is who conquered who?
Getting back to controversial opinions, here's another one. "When the Bough Breaks" would have been a better episode with a darker ending. That is to say, if restoring the Aldean's ability to produce children had proven impossible.
Reasons:
1. It would have resolved the question "why did Picard risk his people's lives beaming them through the shield when a diplomatic solution was available?"
2. Presume that the Aldeans, deprived of the Enterprise children and any hope for a future, order Picard to leave. They restore their shield, recloak the planet, and vanish back into legend. So much more gravitas, yes?
3. It would explain why there was no exchange of technology. If the Aldeans would trade vast knowledge for 7 kids, think what they would pay for the ability to pop out thousands of their own. And think about what the Federation could have done with planetary shields or high powered repulsor beams.
Getting back to controversial opinions, here's another one. "When the Bough Breaks" would have been a better episode with a darker ending. That is to say, if restoring the Aldean's ability to produce children had proven impossible.
Reasons:
1. It would have resolved the question "why did Picard risk his people's lives beaming them through the shield when a diplomatic solution was available?"
2. Presume that the Aldeans, deprived of the Enterprise children and any hope for a future, order Picard to leave. They restore their shield, recloak the planet, and vanish back into legend. So much more gravitas, yes?
3. It would explain why there was no exchange of technology. If the Aldeans would trade vast knowledge for 7 kids, think what they would pay for the ability to pop out thousands of their own. And think about what the Federation could have done with planetary shields or high powered repulsor beams.
Very controversial opinion, possibly:
One reason why Enterprise failed was because, when compared to 90s Trek is was somewhat overly US-American (especially early on with sutff just as that farmer chasing a Klingon with his shotgun) at a time when that would not have been that popular in international markets.
(Not saying whether that's good or bad or anything, I just have the feeling that it might have contributed)
To be fair the tribes that would later consolidate into Rome were influenced by Greek colonies in Italy from very early on. Which considerably influenced their development even before they conquered Greece, such as the replacement of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus with Jupiter, Juno and Minerva as the central divine Triad of the Capitol.
The whole reconstruction of early Roman mythology/religion and the identity and function of various Italic deities and spirits before they came to be associated with the Greek gods is a very interesting topic.
One reason why Enterprise failed was because, when compared to 90s Trek is was somewhat overly US-American (especially early on with sutff just as that farmer chasing a Klingon with his shotgun) at a time when that would not have been that popular in international markets.
(Not saying whether that's good or bad or anything, I just have the feeling that it might have contributed)
To be fair the tribes that would later consolidate into Rome were influenced by Greek colonies in Italy from very early on. Which considerably influenced their development even before they conquered Greece, such as the replacement of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus with Jupiter, Juno and Minerva as the central divine Triad of the Capitol.
The whole reconstruction of early Roman mythology/religion and the identity and function of various Italic deities and spirits before they came to be associated with the Greek gods is a very interesting topic.
I expect a lot of things contributed to Enterprise's decline. The worst was probably just the everyday growing pains that every Trek franchise had to deal with. TNG's first season was so rough, the difference between S1 and S2 inspired a TV trope: "growing the beard", the opposite of "jumping the shark".
From everything I’ve read over the years, Trek simply wasn’t that big internationally. Overseas markets are far more important now to its success than they were in the past.
TNG was huge in Europe from what I know (with TOS being a more obscure show). A relative told me that for the final episode of TNG there was a whole television event in Germany with the audience dressing up in Star Trek uniforms and all that.
As a European, I thought the newer shows (TNG/DS9/VOY) shows felt a bit closer to 'European' sensibilities than the original TOS did (though that could also be because I never lived in the 60's, being born in the 70's). But in a way, ENT being more 'American' again didn't feel "wrong" to me, because ENT was supposed to happen before TOS and had to build a bridge from our world to the world of TOS.
While there was interrnational distribution, the primary audience was American.
Still, it possibly being less popular in secondary markets (less money from it being sold overseas) probably didn't help the longevity of the show.
Nor did being on UPN - a second-tier broadcast network - at a time when viewing habits were changing and corporate ownership of networks was changing. UPN was never a go-to, competitive network even during the relative glory days of VOY.
Similar threads
- Locked
