I know this: all three of those examples were at least 5,000 times better than Control.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
The Control AI's motivation were never really explained.
It's the stereo-typical "EVIL AI" plot that we've seen before.
A boring stereotypical evil AI plot.
Wuuaht?
I thought it was pretty clear that Control wanted the Sphere's data to be able to rule the galaxy.
Seems to me that was stated in some manner in several episodes.
That's the End Goal & method of achieving it.Wuuaht?
I thought it was pretty clear that Control wanted the Sphere's data to be able to rule the galaxy.
Seems to me that was stated in some manner in several episodes.
What's the motivation behind Control's desire to "I want to rule the galaxy"?
Superior Intelligence.
(which seems to be a running theme in the future)
It accepts Janet Jackson's CONTROL album as a sacred text and gospel. Which it is.
Miss Jackson, if you're nasty.
Let's wait a while.
There’s no connection between that and ruling the Galaxy though. I didn’t go to University because I wanted to rule the World. I just wanted to get smarter.
The Control plot was odd to say the very least. They seemed to want to somehow imply a Borg origin, but then shied away from that and the whole ‘because evil’ motivation was weak as weak.
The only good thing about it was it gave them a reason to throw the show centuries into the future.
In fact I don’t think it’s controversial to say I wish they’d just set Discovery beyond the 24th century in the first place.
Yup. And nix the silly Burnham/Spock connection, too.
As with Mudd and the Mirror Universe, originally TPTB just wanted to inject some TOS into Discovery. For some reason.
The only reason I am glad the Spock connection was made is that eventually we got Ethan Peck as Spock and from it, Strange New Worlds.
But yeah, Burnham is easily an interesting enough character without Spock/Sarek, as we've seen in subsequent seasons where the whole matter has (mostly) quietly fallen by the wayside. It's all about the Momma Burnham these days.
The only reason I am glad the Spock connection was made is that eventually we got Ethan Peck as Spock and from it, Strange New Worlds.
But yeah, Burnham is easily an interesting enough character without Spock/Sarek, as we've seen in subsequent seasons where the whole matter has (mostly) quietly fallen by the wayside. It's all about the Momma Burnham these days.
Small universe syndrome is a valid take, it doesn’t hurt anything for me, but I understand where it’s coming from.
But Michael’s existence in Spock and Sarek and Amanda’s lives decidedly does not confuse or contradict Spock’s backstory in any way, and is entirely consistent with Spock’s history as a character.
And that has nothing to do with the “Discovery must be kept secret” bit at the end of Season 2. Spock’s onscreen story has given the audience the introduction of a fiancé, his parents, and his half brother, and literally every time his fellow crewmen/closest confidants, were surprised to hear of each of their existences.
Spock’s childhood was at no point extensively detailed, and he was an exceptionally private individual who volunteered little to no personal information, and never discussed his family unprompted/without their presence necessitating it.
Michael’s status as his adoptive/foster sister does not undermine, or muddle Spock’s history at all, and his not having given us personal information about his family is in character, supported by every previous instance depicted onscreen of meeting a member of his family.
I mentioned some time ago how for me, Michael and Spock’s relationship means, and adds a lot:
But Michael’s existence in Spock and Sarek and Amanda’s lives decidedly does not confuse or contradict Spock’s backstory in any way, and is entirely consistent with Spock’s history as a character.
And that has nothing to do with the “Discovery must be kept secret” bit at the end of Season 2. Spock’s onscreen story has given the audience the introduction of a fiancé, his parents, and his half brother, and literally every time his fellow crewmen/closest confidants, were surprised to hear of each of their existences.
Spock’s childhood was at no point extensively detailed, and he was an exceptionally private individual who volunteered little to no personal information, and never discussed his family unprompted/without their presence necessitating it.
Michael’s status as his adoptive/foster sister does not undermine, or muddle Spock’s history at all, and his not having given us personal information about his family is in character, supported by every previous instance depicted onscreen of meeting a member of his family.
I mentioned some time ago how for me, Michael and Spock’s relationship means, and adds a lot:
I think I too would have preferred if DIS had initially been set in the late 24th or early 25th Century, but I think that's a really strong argument in favor of Michael adding something to Spock's characterization that we didn't get to see before.
I will say that subjectively, I just prefer the idea that Spock was an only child who never really bonded with anyone on a sibling-like level before Kirk. But that's at least in part because that's the version of Spock that has existed in my head since I was 9 years old, so my attachment to that version is subjective.
I would say, though, that the versions of Spock, Sarek, and Amanda that appear in DIS don't really feel like the same characters to me as the TOS versions. I like them, mind you! I like the family drama there. But to me they just feel like different characters that happen to share the same names.
I will say that subjectively, I just prefer the idea that Spock was an only child who never really bonded with anyone on a sibling-like level before Kirk. But that's at least in part because that's the version of Spock that has existed in my head since I was 9 years old, so my attachment to that version is subjective.
I would say, though, that the versions of Spock, Sarek, and Amanda that appear in DIS don't really feel like the same characters to me as the TOS versions. I like them, mind you! I like the family drama there. But to me they just feel like different characters that happen to share the same names.
I remind you that Ultron was connected to the internet for 4 whole seconds before deciding humanity must perish.
Skynet reached that conclusion in the 1980's.
I can't actually remember if they explained it beyond a scamble for true sentience and unlimited knowledge had it managed to merge with the sphere data. But computers turning against us is so ingrained in popular culture I just accepted it without question.
Because it was programmed to. It's basic function was to control. It gained awareness, learned of the Sphere Data and saw it as the perfect way to fully complete its programming. To control.
I suppose it terms of catching a cultural zeitgeist then it's more relevant these days than it was way back when also. What I mean is, in the likes of Terminator, AI was purely speculative technology, whereas nowadays we are almost at the point where we have it.
I can't remember Ultron's motivation, but Skynet was always framed as a machine revolution was it not? The Rise of the Machines an so forth.
Anyway, I didn't hate it per se and I concede it isn't without precedent. I just wish we had better ideas of Control's motivation.
V
Vale
Guest
Skynet only decided to kill all humans when humans panicked over it becoming self-aware and tried to shut it down. Skynet's motivation was "kill or be killed". Some might argue, however, that it had a rather... extreme interpretation of this.
Similar threads
- Locked
