What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Forbin]

If there's an inconsistency, I chalk it up to either politics or opsec. Just like real life. You ever try to make sense of US aircraft designations (i.e. F-15, F-16, F-117?, F-22, F..... -35?!?) ? Yeah, same thing.

Well, they were actually following a sequential series until recently.

The Phantom II in USAF service started life as the F-110 right at the point the government decided to start over, but instead of starting at F-1, they went with F-4 because that was the Navy's original designation for the Phantom. Somehow the F-111 slipped thru, but from The F-5 on it was in sequence for both AF and USN fighters. Gaps can be attributed to canceled projects.
I think the F-117 may have been so-named to created confusion, but I THINK it fit the old legacy sequence as well*. Things went smoothly thru the F-14, 15, 16, 17 (canceled and developed into the 18), 20, 22 and (YF)23.
Then for some crazy reason the JSF program gave the two prototypes X numbers, the next in line being X-34 and X-35. When the X-35 won the flyoff, some schmuck decided it would be "too confusing" to name it F-24, so they carried over the X-35 designation and made it F-35, thus screwing everything up.

Same happened with the bombers. We started the numbering over at B-1, then came the B-2, and now some yutz decided the "21st century" bomber should be called the B-21.

*EDIT: Okay I read Kamen's post after I wrote that. )

 

[Mommy]

Forgive me Father...it's been 30 years since my last confession:

I wish that star trek shows were smarter, more complex, more sophisticated or morally ambiguous, in general.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Forgive me Father...it's been 30 years since my last confession:

I wish that star trek shows were smarter, more complex, more sophisticated or morally ambiguous, in general.

Don't worry, there are lots of other Deep Space Nine fans here as well.

 

[fireproof78]

Forgive me Father...it's been 30 years since my last confession:

I wish that star trek shows were smarter, more complex, more sophisticated or morally ambiguous, in general.

Well, they were meant as action/adventure fare first and foremost.

 

[MikHutch]

What exactly do people mean by morally ambiguous?

 

[FredH]

Most likely, the show being iffy about whether its protagonists’ actions are right or wrong or whether there is a right or wrong; or in some cases, presenting protagonists as having definitely crossed the line or at least leaving it up to you whether they were correct to do so. The obvious example would be “In the Pale Moonlight”, but there are plenty of examples — including some that were probably unintentional, but also others that clearly weren’t — in I’d say every live-action series except maybe SNW.

 

[Shawnster]

See also Lorca in DISCO before it's revealed he's from the Mirror Universe.

I think M'Benga from SNW is supposed to seem morally ambiguous, along with Chapel during the time they served together prior to SNW.

Morally ambiguous means gray, neither black or white. They aren't the villian, but their actions may not have been heroic. The ends justify the means and, in this case, Starfleet and the Federation win because some shady choices were made by characters the viewer was supposed to view as the protagonist or the hero.

 

[MikHutch]

My issue with 'gray' people is they ironically see everything in 'black and white' though because it's all about 'my survival above all else.' In the pale moonlight works because of the difficult situation they were in, but too often it since then devolved into 'war crimes/torture/etc.' is good

if anything, protagonists who aren't willing to risk their morals for a victory are 'grey' because they weight everything, not just 'win at all costs'

 

[fireproof78]

My issue with 'gray' people is they ironically see everything in 'black and white' though because it's all about 'my survival above all else.' In the pale moonlight works because of the difficult situation they were in, but too often it since then devolved into 'war crimes/torture/etc.' is good

if anything, protagonists who aren't willing to risk their morals for a victory are 'grey' because they weight everything, not just 'win at all costs'

In the Pale Moonlight probably set the stage, though I would say TOS was equally ambiguous at times with Kirk opting for a lesser evil choice to try and cope with.

But, DS9 often showed the heroes willing to align themselves with morally questionable people at times in the name of victory.

I think Voyager took a similar path as Janeway tortured an officer for information.

Again, I think Star Trek has allowed the gray areas, but I don't think it's said torture is good. War crimes was more acceptable it seemed though with Sisko and Janeway.

 

[cooleddie74]

Archer tortured an Illyrian in an NX-01 airlock to get information out of him and we're still debating and condemning that scene 20 years later. To some fans it was a moment ENT couldn't come back from because it was the embracing of behavior that was already controversial in real life with the George W. Bush Presidency endorsing methods like waterboarding.

 

[Citiprime]

Archer tortured an Illyrian in an NX-01 airlock to get information out of him and we're still debating and condemning that scene 20 years later. To some fans it was a moment ENT couldn't come back from because it was the embracing of behavior that was already controversial in real life with the George W. Bush Presidency endorsing methods like waterboarding.

The scene in season 3's "Damage" where Archer and T'Pol argue about stealing the Illyrian's warp core is such a morally ambiguous action.

T'Pol is absolutely right that they have become no different than the other "marauders" inside the Expanse, who resort to piracy to survive. But what makes it a great story is that Archer is right too. They have no choice if they want to stop the Xindi weapon, and it's their only option.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[cooleddie74]

I got why he did it. At the time I was weighing Earth and humanity against one random alien in the Delphic Expanse and while grotesque and dark the airlock action did get the results that Archer wanted and helped save Earth from destruction. But I get why fans found it a breaking point and distasteful. Torture rarely gets you want you wanted and the risks outweigh anything else.

The fact the episode aired while George W. Bush was still in his first term in office definitely heightened and intensified the debates over the scene.

 

[fireproof78]

Not sure its a super controversial opinion but to me Star Trek has always done this. War, when it happens, is not a pleasant thing, but it may be a necessary thing. Balance of Terror reflects the grim duty that both Kirk and the Romulan Commander knows fall on them. Such ambiguities resonate throughout Trek, of these terrible tasks that these characters still must do, otherwise face more dire consequences.

One of the reasons Kirk and Sisko and Pike resonate so well with me is because they are decisive leaders, but they are also reflective. They all have moments of that "I'm not so certain" that resonate with me (not saying Picard or Janeway or Archer don't have them but they don't click the same for me).

I get this idea that our heroes are always right is one that's nice, but I don't think Trek ever put it forth that way.

 

[Citiprime]

Not sure its a super controversial opinion but to me Star Trek has always done this. War, when it happens, is not a pleasant thing, but it may be a necessary thing. Balance of Terror reflects the grim duty that both Kirk and the Romulan Commander knows fall on them. Such ambiguities resonate throughout Trek, of these terrible tasks that these characters still must do, otherwise face more dire consequences.

One of the reasons Kirk and Sisko and Pike resonate so well with me is because they are decisive leaders, but they are also reflective. They all have moments of that "I'm not so certain" that resonate with me (not saying Picard or Janeway or Archer don't have them but they don't click the same for me).

I get this idea that our heroes are always right is one that's nice, but I don't think Trek ever put it forth that way.

The only thing I'll say is that sometimes these kind of decisions get forgot about a little too easily. Some of these things should "stick" to these people and their reputations in ways that would be traumatic and have long-lasting consequences.

For example, Janeway's decision with Tuvix. Given that The Doctor's ethical subroutines considers it at the very least "doing harm" to another being, and it's arguably murder, that's something which should bother Janeway. I have a feeling if they were doing Voyager now and redid a version of that episode, it would be something that alters Janeway's personality going forward and how the crew perceives her.

Although, even Deep Space Nine was guilty of this in something like "Hard Time." From that episode on, O'Brien should be a different person. There's no way you can be locked in a simulated dark hole for 30 years and not have the trauma of it totally change a person. But by the next few episodes, he's the same O'Brien.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Archer tortured an Illyrian in an NX-01 airlock to get information out of him and we're still debating and condemning that scene 20 years later. To some fans it was a moment ENT couldn't come back from because it was the embracing of behavior that was already controversial in real life with the George W. Bush Presidency endorsing methods like waterboarding.

Those that upset that Archer went Jack Bauer on the Xindi should also be upset with Janeway holding Tom Paris in solitary confinement. Especially since it was known in the 1990s that solitary confinement, especially for extended periods of time, was bad. And when one really thinks about it, Janeway’s as much of a war criminal as Sisko and Archer, yet it’s never really discussed.

What she did to Tuvix? Sure. Acting an Annorax and wiping out a timeline? Yes. War crimes? Never.

 

[fireproof78]

The only thing I'll say is that sometimes these kind of decisions get forgot about a little too easily. Some of these things should "stick" to these people and their reputations in ways that would be traumatic and have long-lasting consequences.

For example, Janeway's decision with Tuvix. Given that The Doctor's ethical subroutines considers it at the very least "doing harm" to another being, and it's arguably murder, that's something which should bother Janeway. I have a feeling if they were doing Voyager now and redid a version of that episode, it would be something that alters Janeway's personality going forward and how the crew perceives her.

Although, even Deep Space Nine was guilty of this in something like "Hard Time." From that episode on, O'Brien should be a different person. There's no way you can be locked in a simulated dark hole for 30 years and not have the trauma of it totally change a person. But by the next few episodes, he's the same O'Brien.

It's one of my least palatable aspects of Trek, but that goes back to the beginning. Deeply traumatizing events happen and the are wrapped up. It's the episodic nature of the show. Picard had repeated trauma, yet still gets sent back in. Kirk is the same way.

O'Brien? Dude needs a lot of support. And on and on.

Don't care for the lack of repercussions but that's the nature fiction, especially in TV. If they can get drama out of it then it will go through.

 

[Frontis]

See also Lorca in DISCO before it's revealed he's from the Mirror Universe.

I think M'Benga from SNW is supposed to seem morally ambiguous, along with Chapel during the time they served together prior to SNW.

Morally ambiguous means gray, neither black or white. They aren't the villian, but their actions may not have been heroic. The ends justify the means and, in this case, Starfleet and the Federation win because some shady choices were made by characters the viewer was supposed to view as the protagonist or the hero.

"Gray" characters are the most interesting ones I think.

 

[cooleddie74]

Lorca was, for me, infinitely more interesting and complex a character as an emotionally troubled, morally ambiguous Starfleet Captain and not just a covert refugee from the Mirror Universe.

 

[drt]

The only thing I'll say is that sometimes these kind of decisions get forgot about a little too easily. Some of these things should "stick" to these people and their reputations in ways that would be traumatic and have long-lasting consequences.

I always thought this was both a feature and a bug of having such long seasons. With 26 episodes a season, there was a lot of freedom to explore interesting dilemmas and concepts, but often times those would have such long running consequences that it would fundamentally change things in a way that neither the production or audience really wamted.

Lorca was, for me, infinitely more interesting and complex a character as an emotionally troubled, morally ambiguous Starfleet Captain and not just a covert refugee from the Mirror Universe.

I actually would been OK if he was from the Mirror Universe, but preferred that instead of the rather lame heel turn, he had remained loyal to the USS Discovery crew, as that would have been more interesting.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Lorca was, for me, infinitely more interesting and complex a character as an emotionally troubled, morally ambiguous Starfleet Captain and not just a covert refugee from the Mirror Universe.

He was also a covert revolutionary against the Terran Empire