Creating a little inconvenience for people isn't eco terrorism.
Doesn't he screw with the weather system to scare people?
That sounds like the most literal eco-terrorism possible.
It's pretty goddamn illegal at the very least. It's one of the episodes best forgotten for good reason.
I think doing it on Risa is what saved him. The impression I got from how they treated the fundamentalists is that Risa has an official or unofficial policy of not charging tourists unless absolutely unavoidable. I think the most punishment Worf could expect would be being told never to return.
Well with the fundamentalist protesters the Risan attitude was if it makes them happy. But Worf created a planetary monsoon
And the fundamentalists burst into a resort with (drained) phaser rifles. If "making everyone else's vacation worse" was a reason to press charges, they would have done it then.
Creating a little inconvenience for people isn't eco terrorism.
Doesn't he screw with the weather system to scare people?
That sounds like the most literal eco-terrorism possible.
It's pretty goddamn illegal at the very least. It's one of the episodes best forgotten for good reason.
I think doing it on Risa is what saved him. The impression I got from how they treated the fundamentalists is that Risa has an official or unofficial policy of not charging tourists unless absolutely unavoidable. I think the most punishment Worf could expect would be being told never to return.
Well with the fundamentalist protesters the Risan attitude was if it makes them happy. But Worf created a planetary monsoon
And the fundamentalists burst into a resort with (drained) phaser rifles. If "making everyone else's vacation worse" was a reason to press charges, they would have done it then.
That's part of what makes that episode so dumb. You're telling me the planetary authorities wouldn't immediately jail a group of people who made an assault and took hostages? In a time where the Maquis are a thing? Also Worf gives them the ability to cause planetary earthquakes strong enough to tear down buildings, he's responsible, and it's insane that it isn't an immediate kicking out of starfleet for something like that.
Dark_Side on
+3
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
The universe cuts Worf some slack because he's always getting his ass kicked.
Inquisitor77 on
+11
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Anybody else find the Romulan makeup in Picard pretty inconsistent with TNG/DS9?
Eh, it was close enough. At least it wasnt as drastic as how klingons look in discovery, which still makes no sense to me but whatever I'll accept it i guess.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The fact that Zhaban has head loaf but none of the other Romulans do made me think that maybe the Romulans on this show are part human? But that doesn't quite track since so many Romulans don't have the loaf. So I guess they're just resetting the look which I prefer.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
The fact that Zhaban has head loaf but none of the other Romulans do made me think that maybe the Romulans on this show are part human? But that doesn't quite track since so many Romulans don't have the loaf. So I guess they're just resetting the look which I prefer.
Could also just be different loafs in different parts of the Romulan empire?
Alternatively they do not discuss it with outsiders
+15
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
So I'm just starting to rewatch DS9, and are there any Cardassian characters who show up who aren't huge dicks? I honestly can't remember.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Ironically I just watched the episode about a good Cardassian in the first season.
Now we're onto the Bajoran Fundamentalist episode and I'm already sighing inwardly.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
So I'm just starting to rewatch DS9, and are there any Cardassian characters who show up who aren't huge dicks? I honestly can't remember.
There are a lot of good Cardassians who want to reform Cardassia but most of them are one-off characters. Most of the recurring Cardassians are villains or Garaks.
The fact that Zhaban has head loaf but none of the other Romulans do made me think that maybe the Romulans on this show are part human? But that doesn't quite track since so many Romulans don't have the loaf. So I guess they're just resetting the look which I prefer.
Could also just be different loafs in different parts of the Romulan empire?
Alternatively they do not discuss it with outsiders
Oh my god, Karen, you can't just ask people why they've got loaf!
One other factor as to why Picard might not be recognized so easily: I suspect that the Federation deliberately avoids making a big deal of its war heroes.
You could get into situations where the name is known, but not doing many interviews and staying out of the limelight, Picard just isn't that recognizable the way that talking heads on TV are recognizable.
Except for the interview a few days before, where he tore strips off StarFleet in a pretty impressive shitfit. That's the key argument against the lack of recognition. If he'd been silent for the decade plus, I'd still find it unlikely, but believable. That guy wasn't just random scrub off the street. He's a member of StarFleet.
That interview was enough to have Admiral Clancy tell him to cram it.
"Sheer fucking hubris. You think you could just waltz back in here and be entrusted taking men and women into space? Don't you think I was watching the holo the other day along with everyone else in the galaxy?"
Now, the last phrase is obviously hyperbole, but it does make it clear that the holo went out for mass consumption, and rejects the possibility that the interview was recorded but not disseminated (ie, Starfleet locking it down, and only higher ups having seen it). That even an ensign wouldn't have seen it either live, or a youtube-equivalent clip, of a flag officer in your service, losing it on mass media, just doesn't strike me as plausible.
I gotta say I really like Picard as a show but as a continuation of TNG, I don't like it at all
It strains my credulity beyond the point of breaking that Picard only knows one admiral and it's one of the "fuck romulans" admirals. Surely this was a contentious topic in Starfleet right?
Why wouldn't he go to an admiral who 1. doesn't hate him and 2. was probably watching that holo nodding solemnly
and the fact that he wouldn't go to Geordi, Data's best friend, is kind of a slap in the face to Geordi. If he'd called him up the second he found Data's daughter she might still be alive, he's a starship captain... normally I hate blatant callbacks, but if we're going to have Picard, the entire show is already a callback
They already have a solid out too without everyone suddenly wanting nothing to do with Picard in an organization as large as starfleet, Irumodic Syndrome! They called back to it this episode, and Starfleet knows that he might end up getting it, his story sounds crazy!
Sweeping all that aside, if I just assume this character is Jean Luke Picard, Picard's unseen twin brother who was also a captain but not nearly as famous as him and was also best friends with commander data, this is an excellent Star Trek show.
Anybody else find the Romulan makeup in Picard pretty inconsistent with TNG/DS9?
Good. The TNG/DS9 Romulan makeup was moronic. The who reason/ theme of the Romulans is that they are impossible to tell apart from Vulcans. Because you know, they are Vulcans
It strains my credulity beyond the point of breaking that Picard only knows one admiral and it's one of the "fuck romulans" admirals. Surely this was a contentious topic in Starfleet right?
Why wouldn't he go to an admiral who 1. doesn't hate him and 2. was probably watching that holo nodding solemnly
He's meeting with the CNC "Commander in Chief" (check the dialog when he gets his visitor's badge -- Picard: "I have a meeting with the CNC"). This is the senior most admiral who is in charge of all of Starfleet. Probably equivalent to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy.
The loaf was a century-long prank by the Romulans to confuse the hell out of the Federation. They finally gave up after no one seemed to notice the change.
+4
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The thing about that admiral and Starfleet is
She brings up perfectly valid points. She brings up things that would give even a normal, educated, liberal-minded Starfleet person pause. Allies of the federation were discussing leaving the federation over helping Romulans. Ships were already stretched thin, then Utopia Plenicia is destroyed. Argument can be made, perfectly validly, that the Admiral is right and Picard is wrong.
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
+7
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Admirals aren't god-kings unto themselves. They operate within a chain of command with clear spheres of responsibility. Picard isn't just asking to get reassigned. He's asking to be reinstated and for a ship and crew. That likely requires a certain level of authority and a certain type of dispensation from specific people and departments, not just any old admiral.
Damar has one of my favourite character arcs in any tv series, he's great.
After watching Renegade Cut's video about Rick Berman I'm really upset that we missed out on a Garak Bashir romance
What are you talking about ? It's called "every single time Garak and Bashir are in a scene together."
And then compare with all the "real" Bashir romance subplots. They're all terrible or forgettable. Even if they needed to avoid The Gay, I would replace every Bashir romance scene with a scene of Bashir and Garak having a conversation over lunch and not think twice.
She brings up perfectly valid points. She brings up things that would give even a normal, educated, liberal-minded Starfleet person pause. Allies of the federation were discussing leaving the federation over helping Romulans. Ships were already stretched thin, then Utopia Plenicia is destroyed. Argument can be made, perfectly validly, that the Admiral is right and Picard is wrong.
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
i have a feeling her animosity is more to do with knowing Picard's track record with "saving lives" and just how much twisting his arm the crew had to do to get him to do the right thing.
Also it would have been doubly hilarious if she was Janeway.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
She brings up perfectly valid points. She brings up things that would give even a normal, educated, liberal-minded Starfleet person pause. Allies of the federation were discussing leaving the federation over helping Romulans. Ships were already stretched thin, then Utopia Plenicia is destroyed. Argument can be made, perfectly validly, that the Admiral is right and Picard is wrong.
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
i have a feeling her animosity is more to do with knowing Picard's track record with "saving lives" and just how much twisting his arm the crew had to do to get him to do the right thing.
Also it would have been doubly hilarious if she was Janeway.
That cast change would have been pretty great, but I have a feeling it would have created animosity among some fans and I think they're making an effort to not create animosity.
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
She brings up perfectly valid points. She brings up things that would give even a normal, educated, liberal-minded Starfleet person pause. Allies of the federation were discussing leaving the federation over helping Romulans. Ships were already stretched thin, then Utopia Plenicia is destroyed. Argument can be made, perfectly validly, that the Admiral is right and Picard is wrong.
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
i have a feeling her animosity is more to do with knowing Picard's track record with "saving lives" and just how much twisting his arm the crew had to do to get him to do the right thing.
Also it would have been doubly hilarious if she was Janeway.
That cast change would have been pretty great, but I have a feeling it would have created animosity among some fans and I think they're making an effort to not create animosity.
Even with the double whammy meme of "Admirals in Star Trek are terrible" and "Janeway is a psychopath", I think that might have been a bridge too far. The character needs to be completely hostile to Picard for the scene to work. Having a known... "heroic main character" for lack of a better term wouldn't work. Again even with the Janeway memes, I couldn't see her flying off the handle like that. It'd probably work if she was more of an inept stonewalling admiral. "I sympathize with you, but my hands are tied here" sort of thing. Not "Sheer fucking hubris" though.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If trying to rescue Romulans had allowed the synths to destroy starfleet's access to coffee, I think Janeway would have worked. That's a far bleaker future than they were going for though.
She brings up perfectly valid points. She brings up things that would give even a normal, educated, liberal-minded Starfleet person pause. Allies of the federation were discussing leaving the federation over helping Romulans. Ships were already stretched thin, then Utopia Plenicia is destroyed. Argument can be made, perfectly validly, that the Admiral is right and Picard is wrong.
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
i have a feeling her animosity is more to do with knowing Picard's track record with "saving lives" and just how much twisting his arm the crew had to do to get him to do the right thing.
Also it would have been doubly hilarious if she was Janeway.
That cast change would have been pretty great, but I have a feeling it would have created animosity among some fans and I think they're making an effort to not create animosity.
Even with the double whammy meme of "Admirals in Star Trek are terrible" and "Janeway is a psychopath", I think that might have been a bridge too far. The character needs to be completely hostile to Picard for the scene to work. Having a known... "heroic main character" for lack of a better term wouldn't work. Again even with the Janeway memes, I couldn't see her flying off the handle like that. It'd probably work if she was more of an inept stonewalling admiral. "I sympathize with you, but my hands are tied here" sort of thing. Not "Sheer fucking hubris" though.
It'd also reinforce all the misogynist neckbeard opinions that permitting a female Captain was a mistake. I'm old enough to remember those "debates". And I'd rather not relitigate that again.
I didn't like Janeway. But it wasn't because she was a woman, it's because I just didn't like Voyager and thought it was a bad show. Kim, Chakotay, Neelix especially, were just terrible up until I stopped watching it. Most of the other mains were up and down. The only consistent good character on that show was a hologram. It wasn't because I didn't give it a chance (pretty sure I got into season 3), and it wasn't because the Captain was a woman. But for a lot of people that last was a sticking point.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Kate Mulgrew hated Captain Janeway, too. We are all united in our contempt for such a poorly-written, schizophrenic character.
Kate Mulgrew hated Captain Janeway, too. We are all united in our contempt for such a poorly-written, schizophrenic character.
Maybe we are, but the character certainly has her defenders among the Trek faithful and there's really very little for Chabon/Goldsman/Kurtz to gain by going out of their way to alienate them.
Posts
And the fundamentalists burst into a resort with (drained) phaser rifles. If "making everyone else's vacation worse" was a reason to press charges, they would have done it then.
That's part of what makes that episode so dumb. You're telling me the planetary authorities wouldn't immediately jail a group of people who made an assault and took hostages? In a time where the Maquis are a thing? Also Worf gives them the ability to cause planetary earthquakes strong enough to tear down buildings, he's responsible, and it's insane that it isn't an immediate kicking out of starfleet for something like that.
Yes, but I'm glad. It's bringing them back to how they were in TOS and dropping the weird head ridges.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Could also just be different loafs in different parts of the Romulan empire?
Alternatively they do not discuss it with outsiders
Damar starts as one, but he gets better. That's a few seasons from now, though.
Ziyal. Tekeny Ghemor.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Now we're onto the Bajoran Fundamentalist episode and I'm already sighing inwardly.
There are a lot of good Cardassians who want to reform Cardassia but most of them are one-off characters. Most of the recurring Cardassians are villains or Garaks.
Oh my god, Karen, you can't just ask people why they've got loaf!
Kira's Cardassian dad is a good guy.
After watching Renegade Cut's video about Rick Berman I'm really upset that we missed out on a Garak Bashir romance
What are you talking about ? It's called "every single time Garak and Bashir are in a scene together."
It strains my credulity beyond the point of breaking that Picard only knows one admiral and it's one of the "fuck romulans" admirals. Surely this was a contentious topic in Starfleet right?
Why wouldn't he go to an admiral who 1. doesn't hate him and 2. was probably watching that holo nodding solemnly
and the fact that he wouldn't go to Geordi, Data's best friend, is kind of a slap in the face to Geordi. If he'd called him up the second he found Data's daughter she might still be alive, he's a starship captain... normally I hate blatant callbacks, but if we're going to have Picard, the entire show is already a callback
They already have a solid out too without everyone suddenly wanting nothing to do with Picard in an organization as large as starfleet, Irumodic Syndrome! They called back to it this episode, and Starfleet knows that he might end up getting it, his story sounds crazy!
Sweeping all that aside, if I just assume this character is Jean Luke Picard, Picard's unseen twin brother who was also a captain but not nearly as famous as him and was also best friends with commander data, this is an excellent Star Trek show.
Good. The TNG/DS9 Romulan makeup was moronic. The who reason/ theme of the Romulans is that they are impossible to tell apart from Vulcans. Because you know, they are Vulcans
He's meeting with the CNC "Commander in Chief" (check the dialog when he gets his visitor's badge -- Picard: "I have a meeting with the CNC"). This is the senior most admiral who is in charge of all of Starfleet. Probably equivalent to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Commander_in_chief
Honestly I much, much prefer it when Star Trek does moral questions this way. It's more intellectually honest. Usually when there's a controversial moral question, the arguments behind each side are a lot more complex than "lol I hate minorities" (I say usually, because there have been a lot more "lol I hate minorities" coming out of the woodwork since 2014 or maybe earlier. But even those people will have more nuanced positions if you try to talk to them, which I'm not implying changes the fact that they're wrong, but gives you an idea of why people come to wrong decisions in the first place.)
So yeah, the positions that the Admiral gives are based in fear of the future and preserving what we have. Which, of course, is also the position behind Brexit and voting for Trump, but the Admiral would be one of the people looking at history books of Trump in disgust and wondering how any people could be so misguided. The thing we fear will always be changing, the risk to what we have will always be something different, but it's a natural, perhaps evolutionary, position for a human to take. It's harder to say, "in order to preserve what we have we MUST risk it in just this sort of way"
On my sleeve, let the runway start
And then compare with all the "real" Bashir romance subplots. They're all terrible or forgettable. Even if they needed to avoid The Gay, I would replace every Bashir romance scene with a scene of Bashir and Garak having a conversation over lunch and not think twice.
Also it would have been doubly hilarious if she was Janeway.
That cast change would have been pretty great, but I have a feeling it would have created animosity among some fans and I think they're making an effort to not create animosity.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I didn't like Janeway. But it wasn't because she was a woman, it's because I just didn't like Voyager and thought it was a bad show. Kim, Chakotay, Neelix especially, were just terrible up until I stopped watching it. Most of the other mains were up and down. The only consistent good character on that show was a hologram. It wasn't because I didn't give it a chance (pretty sure I got into season 3), and it wasn't because the Captain was a woman. But for a lot of people that last was a sticking point.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3