ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

What is the one issue you have with Star Trek?

the bungalo bill

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2308

Report this May. 29 2011, 10:01 pm

I hate it when people say "Star Trek is stupid" after you say "I love Star Trek." 


OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 30 2011, 5:40 am

Quote: the bungalo bill @ May. 29 2011, 10:01 pm

>

>I hate it when people say "Star Trek is stupid" after you say "I love Star Trek." 

>


Well... That just means you don't have to share!


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this May. 30 2011, 7:54 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ May. 29 2011, 7:12 pm

>

>Well yeah the nature of the Kes and Prytt does render the argument in their case kind of moot. At the time when they were debating the issue, though, Crusher and Picard did not know what kind of people they were.

>What if the Prytt were more moderate isolationists - - less hostile and paranoid about the majority culture, but more like the Amish, say? It would seem from their debate that Picard would have considered the Kes' application, but would still have felt uncomfortable that the planet was not yet "unified".

>The portrayal of these peoples were great -- but actually I would have liked to see the question viewed from a more moderate perspective (ie. If the people involved were not so paranoid.)

>


Oh, I agree entirely that Beverly raised a great question, and a part of me regrets that the entire episode just couldn't be a long debate over breakfast. But I know that would bore most viewers. I do think Beverly asked the question from almost a literal viewpoint, or least she challenged Picard in that manner. It looked like Picard was going to explain exempliying nuances. I do agree, I would have liked to hear more on that.


OtakuJo, your followup question is great too. Unforturnately, it can't truly be answered yet. Although, the Amish, to further their comparison, are both cooperative and interactive with modern society just choosing to live without technology. It's their refusal to adopt technology combined with our own reluctance to interact without technology that creates a social barrier. One of the elements I find most intriguing about your question is the nature of the Prime Directive and the technological standard of achieving warp drive. The whole point is so a civilization will have two way transit - they to us/us to them - thereby placing each relation on relatively equal ground. A technological rejection seems to negate the premise, certainly in terms of space travel. However, in such a scenario, I don't think that particular society would seek out Federation membership. But it is complicated when dealing with a second faction that dominates the planet's majority.

Dogbandit

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this May. 30 2011, 12:10 pm

It always annoyed me that Starfleet and it's Admirals that appeared on the show were badly written.  They were always the source of conflict as authority figures.


I know it was a dramatic devide, but it's my bugbear.  Across all series too, and movies. 


I have always wondered how we are to perceive Starfleet as benevolent when it seems to be run by incompetents and despots.


******I dream of a symmetrical world***

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum