I thought so; when Lightning brought that up I began to wonder if I had missed something.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
- Thread starter Noeland
- Start date
Lightning
Master Member
In the context of space travel, without the differentiation of air and water, any distinction between the jobs of Pilot and Helmsman is very blurry. All the helmsman we see in trek are also accomplished small craft pilots. Tell me honestly if you would object if Robert Duncan McNeal described Tom Paris as a pilot.
Y'see, despite this being a thread about the show--without qualifiers, like "bashers only" or "gushers only"--people seem to think that dissenting opinions shouldn't be allowed, and that anyone who doesn't like where STAR TREK has gone (...down the toilet, hard) should just...shut up and go away.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. Free speech is still a thing, and dissenters deserve just as much "safe space" to discuss and vent.
No, it's the actual gatekeepers who are the problem, here. The sort of people who are more than happy to discriminate and exclude and do all the sorts of things that they happily project upon others.
I, for one, am tired of giving them ground. STAR TREK and the other great franchises may be dead, but I'm not letting them go quietly into the night. I've been heartened by seeing people (however few) be heard in this thread and take it back from the clowns and trolls who would kick us out.
If you don't like what we say, you have three simple options:
1. Respond in a polite and articulate manner;
2. Ignore all of us, and continue showering praise over this great new direction that the franchise has taken;
3. Go away. Surely there has to be something better to do than moaning online about how people are actually--GASP!--quite correctly moaning about how the new show isn't as good as the one from our childhoods.
I believe that the correct term is neither pilot nor helmsman, but the more proper:
“Space Person who pushes the buttons to steer the ship”.
Or, just “Sulu”:
Last edited:
asalaw
Master Member
As a shuttle pilot, no.
No, because unlike Ortegas, he can actually do his job. We've seen Paris fly and is actually quite competent at it. Also, he does his assigned tasks with much less sass than Ortegas.
Now tell me honestly: if Ortegas were helmsman (or helmsperson) aboard Voyager, how long do you think she'd last before Captain Janeway tossed her into the brig?
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
Ortegas, Sulu us out of here, warp factor four!
Cephus
Master Member
You do what you want. We'll continue to point out the reasons why we don't like it. If you don't like that, don't read the thread. Problem solved. One thing that we've pointed out many times is that the people who say they like it, they can't actually explain WHY they like it. It's just "but muh fee-fees!" That isn't a rational way to look at media and decide if it's good. Maybe that's why people don't like to hear where it fails, because they can't explain why they think it succeeds.
That's a you problem, not an us problem.
Arlington Beech
Sr Member
Perhaps it’s because this thread is just a negative bashing of a new show, and anyone who points it out gets railroaded.
I enjoyed the storytelling, the characters, seeing how they got to where they were in TOS (if you can’t see how interesting the last episode was to putting some nuance into Spock’s mutiny in the original series..then you’re just here to complain, not to strive for better).
I’d love for this to be a discussion on how this show could be better, instead of just why people think it’s ****. But we aren’t getting that conversation.
Last edited:
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
I’ve praised episodes in this thread. My very first post was saying how episode one started off strong and that I was a fun Star Trek episode.
Sadly, it ran out of fuel immediately and nose dived.
Picard season three will suck!
Sadly, it ran out of fuel immediately and nose dived.
Picard season three will suck!
Picard102
Sr Member
2 pages actually. About 5% of the thread.
Picard102
Sr Member
And we never will. The hate brigade needs this in their lives more than the rest of us need to have rational discussions about it here.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
There have been SEVERAL posts explaining exactly why they do not enjoy it. The point that you choose to ignore them to enforce your own agenda does not make your comment a fact.
Feefeesfeefeesfeefees!
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
I just reminded myself of a truth that has been known since the late 90’s.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you still look retarded.
Peace out and flame on.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you still look retarded.
Peace out and flame on.
No kidding. This is less about having an actual discussion than fending off highly-emotional "consumers" who are threatened by any and all criticism of their chosen "content".
Picard102
Sr Member
They have provided subjective reasons they do not enjoy it. Those are not facts either, those are “feefees”.
Picard102
Sr Member
Pot meet kettle.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
And…. Ignore button pushed.
Cephus
Master Member
Or maybe it's because those who like it don't have anything intelligent to say.
