Yeah... in situations like that, it's hard not to do a hard eye roll on the "don't judge people so quickly" advice.
Yeah, like, these aren't "Well, the guy is a republican, so what?" posts. Kinda glad I can't find a twitter feed for him....
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Yeah, like, these aren't "Well, the guy is a republican, so what?" posts. Kinda glad I can't find a twitter feed for him....
The man can have whatever politics he wants. I don’t agree with them but that’s of no significance.
When his pencil hit paper though, his ship designs are beautiful. His political views don’t change that.
I’d rather discuss and debate his views with him than decree his existence abhorrent and his works of no merit because of them.
That, my friends, is Trek.
When his pencil hit paper though, his ship designs are beautiful. His political views don’t change that.
I’d rather discuss and debate his views with him than decree his existence abhorrent and his works of no merit because of them.
That, my friends, is Trek.
Last edited:
Ignoring the political beliefs of people who would legislate others out of existence for the convenience of enjoying their artwork is not "Trek", but I don't harbor any delusions of changing your (or anyone else's) minds.
I wouldn't categorize Q anons or Redpill culture as mere "political beliefs" either.
Edit:. Just reread the last couple pages of thread. I have to hand it to @F. King Daniel there have been a lot of posts here where people have put words in his mouth that he did not say and he has ignored it every single time.
Last edited:
There is, actually, a difference between having a genuine disagreement with someone, and someone promoting a harmful and seditious lie. Admiral Leyton went to jail.
The Plasma Torpedo that Kirk reversed course from at FTL with his Warp Drive should be renamed to the "Plasma Cannon Ball" internally within StarFleet due to the nature of the projectile and it's resemblence & performance characteristics to Cannon Balls of yore during the Age of Sail on Earth.
Later Plasma Torpedoes that Romulans used were a proper Torpedo, that had guidance, propulsion, & a Plasma Warhead.
Later Plasma Torpedoes that Romulans used were a proper Torpedo, that had guidance, propulsion, & a Plasma Warhead.
Pilots for New Trek
Remembrance (PIC) - 10/10
Strange New Worlds (SNW) - 9/10
The Vulcan Hello (DSC) - 7/10
Pilots for Old Trek
The Cage (TOS) - 10/10
Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS) - 9/10
Emissary (DS9) - 8/10
Caretaker (VOY) - 8/10
Broken Bow (ENT) - 7/10
Encounter at Farpoint (TNG) - 6/10
Sticking with live-action.
Remembrance (PIC) - 10/10
Strange New Worlds (SNW) - 9/10
The Vulcan Hello (DSC) - 7/10
Pilots for Old Trek
The Cage (TOS) - 10/10
Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS) - 9/10
Emissary (DS9) - 8/10
Caretaker (VOY) - 8/10
Broken Bow (ENT) - 7/10
Encounter at Farpoint (TNG) - 6/10
Sticking with live-action.
1. WNMHGB
2. SNW S1E1
3. "The Cage"
4. "Beyond the Farthest Star"
5. "Remembrance"
6. "Second Contact"
7. "Encounter at Farpoint"
8. "Lost and Found"
9. "The Vulcan Hello"
10. "Emissary"
11. "Caretaker"
12. "Broken Bow"
2. SNW S1E1
3. "The Cage"
4. "Beyond the Farthest Star"
5. "Remembrance"
6. "Second Contact"
7. "Encounter at Farpoint"
8. "Lost and Found"
9. "The Vulcan Hello"
10. "Emissary"
11. "Caretaker"
12. "Broken Bow"
I think the windows aren't too bad – it would be very odd if a ship that size didn't have any – but there's a lot of surface detail on the Enterprise-D that detracts somewhat from the overall design, especially when compared to the comparatively smooth hulls of the original and refit 1701, or the Excelsior. Things like the transporter emitters and especially the lifeboats just break up those clean, smooth lines, and feel a bit, dare I say, low-tech. Why do they need to be on the outside in the 24th century, the era of "technology unchained", when 22nd and 23rd century starships managed perfectly well with them hidden behind hull plates?
Just look how visually noisy all those square hatches are. Worse, the transporter emitters at the front of the saucer look like angry eyebrows!
Also, the 4ft filming model with its extra hull detailing didn't help – I remember as a kid seeing it in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and thinking that it was a deliberate modification to the model to make it look more heavily armoured. The detailing on the hull plates was too heavy, even for low-res CRT TVs.
The lighting in this picture just made me wonder - what would the ship have looked like with a smaller, more proportioned saucer, say, like just the light silver lit up part of this picture? Its an interesting visual thought experiment.
It'd look a bit like this I guess.
Though I wouldn't say that the saucer is out of proportion, it just looks really big when you stick a camera close to it. If you pull the camera away and then zoom in it appears less huge by comparison:
V
Vale
Guest
Though I wouldn't say that the saucer is out of proportion, it just looks really big when you stick a camera close to it. If you pull the camera away and then zoom in it appears less huge by comparison:
Which brings us back to the point that the ship was often badly, or at least boringly, lit and filmed in TNG. This slightly-off-centre slightly-looking-up view we get of the Enterprise-D all the time, presumably in homage to the similar view we often saw of the original 1701 (and because it's easier to mount and motion control the models that way), is definitely not its most flattering angle.
CGI has some advantages. I love me a good physical model. But the ability of CGI to place the lights and camera any place you fing want them, cannot be beat.
My most controversial opinion?
There's no discontinuity in Star Trek. Whenever something looks different or is a retcon, it's just because of the constant time travel.
Yes, this means Klingon appearances, bridges, uniforms, Eugenics War dates, the fact that Klingon First Contact wasn't disastrously wrong, and so on. Hell, Archer's entire series, are all the result of time being constantly meddled with. Nothing is wrong. Everything is just updated.
There's no discontinuity in Star Trek. Whenever something looks different or is a retcon, it's just because of the constant time travel.
Yes, this means Klingon appearances, bridges, uniforms, Eugenics War dates, the fact that Klingon First Contact wasn't disastrously wrong, and so on. Hell, Archer's entire series, are all the result of time being constantly meddled with. Nothing is wrong. Everything is just updated.
Last edited:
That is how Doctor Who fans roll.
I sure hope for Worf that his experience in Parallels didn't leave him sensitive to such timeline changes for the rest of his life - he seems psychologically less equipped to deal with such awareness than, for example, Guinan.
WORF: I do not know. Things are changing.
TROI: What's changed?
WORF: <...>It is as if events, circumstances, continue to change from moment to moment, but I am the only one who seems to be aware of it.
Guinan: Like what?
Worf: For a while, I had....two....
Guinan: Two what?
Worf: We do not speak of it.
This is more an embarrassing one:
I thought INTO DARKNESS was a critique of the Iraq War with Admiral Marcus creating the threat of Klingon weapons of mass destruction and tying them into Khan/Harrison as a way to justify cassus belli.
Apparently it was not about that.
I thought INTO DARKNESS was a critique of the Iraq War with Admiral Marcus creating the threat of Klingon weapons of mass destruction and tying them into Khan/Harrison as a way to justify cassus belli.
Apparently it was not about that.
I can see that.
Similar threads
- Locked
