In this century.....possibly.
What is your personal head canon?
- Thread starter AmandaSmith
- Start date
In this century.....possibly.
Since Q was mentioned, I see his "death" and the events leading up to it being his own version of the trial that he put the TNG crew through that other Q, possibly Q that had ascended an extra level, were putting him through. In the end he passed and didn't die. But i just like the character and didn't like the series bringing characters back just to kill them off. I haven't yet tackled the mental gymnastics needed to keep Shelby and Ro alive.
No, I'm not wondering. I understand perfectly well. I am just amazed at how much leeway Kirk is given. Other characters don't get that grace, and it's odd that even the mere question of possible rules violation gets knocked down because we don't know the rules, like we somehow have all data relevant to Starfleet operations.
I don't see Kirk getting any more leeway than any other captain that I've watched. None of them that I can remember, has actually been court martialed, except for Kirk, who was twice ("Court Martial" - TOS and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home).
Sisko wasn't tried/reprimanded or anything else for actually replacing a historical figure and Janeway became an Admiral after essentially rewriting the timeline to bring Voyager home early.
Disregards orders in TOS in the name of saving his friend, a theme that will repeat. Numerous violations in ST 4, yet still retains command. Numerous violations of temporal rules, whatever those happen to be. Dude's a dick to Decker for no good reason.
Breaking rules. I don't care for it.
I always thought the “science ship” she was assigned was an oceanographic ship for the whales on Earth.
A theme that will repeat throughout the entirety of Star Trek.
Didn't retain command, he got a brand spanking new command. He wasn't the CO of the Enterprise, Spock was.
There are none in the 23rd century that we've been clued in on. So you're mad that he breaks a rule that there's no proof even exists? Should Archer be punished for the times he broke the Prime Directive before it even existed?
Well, as we move through the movie, we see that Decker is an idiot. So, good call by Kirk.
Star Trek may not be the franchise for you, then. According to Admiral Satie in "The Drumhead", Picard had broken the Prime Directive nine times in three-and-a-half years in command of the Enterprise.
The Drumhead said:
The Next Generation Transcripts - The Drumhead (chakoteya.net)
A good thought, definitely. But she says, "see you around the galaxy", which makes me think it was a spaceship, but could be read the way you're talking about.
That there are violations on record from DTI indicates some sort of rule.
Indeed, probably not.
But it's not that he needs to be in trouble. It's that the violations need to be acknowledged as problematic behavior that should be changed. Instead, it's an "Atta boy" and here's a shiny new ship."
So, be dicks to idiots? Can't wait to teach that to my kids.
No. It means the DTI likely studied his career at some point. Much like how we try to apply modern values to people and things from the past. Including a certain 1960's TV program.
Star Trek isn't a treatise on military rules and etiquette, it is entertainment.
There are times, that one really has no other choice.
Trials and Tribble-lations said:
The Deep Space Nine Transcripts - Trials and Tribble-ations (chakoteya.net)
I think that is supposed to mean seventeen separate incidents.
This conversation is going in circles.
"Kirk violated all these time travel rules and he was never even punished!"
"How do you know those rules even existed in Kirk's time?"
"Because these two bit characters in the 24th Century said so! Why shouldn't we believe them?"
"Those rules are completely unmentioned in all the 23rd Century episodes of Star Trek. Why aren't you believing them?"
"Because these two bit characters in the 24th Century said so!"
For crying out loud, if it bugs you that much, just pretend that Kirk was serving a long prison sentence for all of his temporal violations between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI and was only released right before Praxis exploded. The rest of us would just like to enjoy some time travel stories without worrying about what "crimes" those two goons from Temporal Investigations would've charged Kirk with.
"Kirk violated all these time travel rules and he was never even punished!"
"How do you know those rules even existed in Kirk's time?"
"Because these two bit characters in the 24th Century said so! Why shouldn't we believe them?"
"Those rules are completely unmentioned in all the 23rd Century episodes of Star Trek. Why aren't you believing them?"
"Because these two bit characters in the 24th Century said so!"
For crying out loud, if it bugs you that much, just pretend that Kirk was serving a long prison sentence for all of his temporal violations between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI and was only released right before Praxis exploded. The rest of us would just like to enjoy some time travel stories without worrying about what "crimes" those two goons from Temporal Investigations would've charged Kirk with.
There are days I would be delighted if they removed the original Star Trek from the "Prime" timeline.
I didn't claim otherwise. There are certain things that grind my gears, to use an old expression, that just stand out to me.
Sometimes, yes, but not sure Kirk's choice was a great one, or even very entertaining. It felt needlessly mean.
Wow, over the top a little? It doesn't "bug me" in any important sense. It was a discussion around why I think there should have been some measure of consequence.
No one is stopping you from enjoying your time travel stories...
This is a thread about personal head canon, after all.
Yes, this line made absolutely no sense to me, even when I originally saw the film in the theaters. Taylor is the only person in the galaxy who knows about humpback whales and they're sending her off on a spaceship? Why?
They replicated the sounds of whales and are just going to let them die. She can fax her reports over from the ship.
Unless you're being facetious, I think you completely missed my point.
Your point being it's ridiculous to take the only humpback whale expert away from the whales, correct?
Yes, I find it ridiculous and made a similar ridiculous, tongue in cheek, comment.
That was only half my point. The other half is, why take someone from the 20th century and throw her on a spaceship going wherever? The whales were only the icing on the cake for such a boneheaded decision.
Similar threads
