For goodness sake. Paramount+ just gained "The spot for all Star Trek films and series" earlier this month. Now, they have to put an asterisk on that statement, "*except Prodigy."
I'm very surprised. I thought Prodigy had a strong following. What a strange situation, quickly pulling season one. But I don't understand the ins and outs of streaming contracts.
Wah Ming Chang was a very talented artist of different disciplines, and was an important part of Star Trek. He was a designer on, maybe of, the false Balok and the Salt Vampire. As well as other contributions to TOS and more.
I think that Marc Alaimo excels in the part. With all of Dukat's machinations and manipulating he could have ended up as a mustache twirling, cliched joke. Dukat is no joke. One moment Dukat has me sympathetic for him as he follows a path that could redeem him. Then, he's trying to destroy what might redeem him. Such a great, unpredictable character. I agree that DS9 handled Dukat perfectly. Even the cause of Dukat's grief that ignited his descent into madness was sullied. Sure, he loved Ziyal. He also first intended to kill her.
On a ship capable of traveling the mycelial network like on DSC, "Make it spin!" Because I would be familiar with Stargate SG-1 in Star Trek. When IPs collide, a nebula spawns a star.
No such thing as boring for ones personal preferences. 'Cause they're personal. Reading up on how the practical effects of Armus were done gives me goosebumps. "Hold your breath while we lower you into a large pool of goopy Metamucil dyed black." Yikes.
"The show lost 2 out of 3 lead actresses going into the second season. Not a great look."
Excellent point. I've read the, "this is how a security officer would go out," explanation for Yar's demise, but I never bought it. News of Denise Crosby leaving TNG was out before "Skin of Evil" was first broadcast. When I saw the episode I thought that Yar's death came across as being intentionally petty and meaningless. "We have women as main characters but we don't know what to do with them," is endlessly frustrating to me, with Star Trek and other shows. A ship's doctor, a chief of security, and a ship's counselor who can sense emotions -- that is a pretty rich ground from which to grow stories, beyond the characters backstories.
Oh, let's not. I think the PIC season 3 finale is a fine farewell to TNG crew all being together. I'd love to see individual stories about the TNG main cast, post-PIC. Riker and Troi, and Kestra. Geordi La Forge and his never seen wife. Worf being Worf -- pondering, fighting, snoozing after fighting. Data redux. And, I'm always up for more of Picard. So, I'm a "yes!" for seeing more individual stories of TNG main characters. I can do without another "getting the band back together," curtain call for the TNG main cast as a whole.
If the safety protocols fail, resulting in a space tumbleweed hybrid, then Division 14 steps in. D-14 will send the affected to a medical spa on Endicronimas V, where they are pampered and tended to like a precious gem. (Lower Decks, "Much Ado About Boimler" s1e7)
A transporter tech checking that area is clear for transport makes sense. And, Star Trek is excellent at getting me to suspend disbelief (in its tech). I'm going to roll with your idea.
This looks really interesting. A bit of why Kate Mulgrew replaced Geneviève Bujold is mentioned in The Captains (2011). No shade was thrown towards Ms. Bujold in The Captains. I'm looking forward this documentary. I'm always up to learning more behind the scenes Star Trek info.
That was such a bad situation. The whole, "how dare you question me, get out," loss of Gates McFadden. Dr. Pulaski's introduction as Bones 2.0 instead of as a distinct, unique character, and her first comments to Data. I think Diana Muldaur is very talented and a Star Trek icon -- TOS and TNG. Pulaski is a strong character, but that first impression was hard for me to shake. I was happy when Dr. Crusher returned, but by then I was also also sad to see Dr. Pulaski go. I wish that PIC had made room for a Dr. Pulaski appearance.
I accept transporting to somewhere without a pad because mumble, mumble, Star Trek science. What I always wondered about was how blasé folks usually were about transporting to somewhere that didn't have a transporter pad. Who makes sure no one is standing in the beam to area. Does the transporter have safety protocols to just not transport if there is something of a certain size in the way? Transporting someone partially into rock has been shown in Star Trek (one instance, PIC s2e9). Weaponized use of a transporter, maybe by overriding transporter safety protocols? That was done intentionally, but still.
No worries about the multi-post. Of course, you must do what works best for you. Hopefully, that decision will keep you posting here on Star Trek. Your views and opinions are interesting and welcomed.
That's an interesting perspective. I agree that "this is a set law" can be perceived as anything not covered being construed as legal (although not necessarily moral). Which could lead to the creation of a new law, or the change in an existing law, to cover the new territory. I also agree that with a guideline a lot depends on acting in good faith. I think the Prime Directive is vague when the situation is the destruction of a civilization due to a natural cause, not from the actions of the civilization.
Say a natural event -- a meteor or asteroid or solar flare or something -- will cause an extinction level event on the planet with a pre-warp civilization. And, Starfleet has the means to prevent such a thing. As long as the pre-warp civilization never knows that their destruction was prevented by Starfleet, whether choosing to save the civilization or to doing nothing and allow it to be destroyed, are both following the Prime Directive. For me, that's where the Prime Directive is vague. Or, quite likely, I'm unsuccessfully trying to process two vastly different outcomes having the same value, i.e. not violating the Prime Directive.
I think the original Prime Directive from TOS was fairly straightforward. A statement about the U. S.' involvement in the Vietnam war. Another, "In the future, we don't do that kind of stuff anymore." Storytelling in Star Trek evolved and expanded over the years. I think this has left the Prime Directive still valid, but vague.
Vague in the what ifs of not intervening to prevent the destruction of a civilization that isn't brought on by that society's (or societies) decisions. I get if the Federation sits out on stopping a society its own self-destruction. Even if new to warp technology, a planet with societies bent on self-destructing means about all the Federation could do is become the planetary police force. I think SNW's s1e1 planet Kiley 279 is an outlier. Kiley 279 being on the precipice of warp-backed absolute destruction was Starfleet's fault. Unintentional, but still their fault. I think violating the Prime Directive in that situation was warranted.
The Prime Directive is like the rule to stop at red lights. Not an extensive treatise, but important. Violating that rule can lead to very bad things. Still, sometimes following the Prime Directive can lead to very bad things, like in the Terran universe. I wonder what would happen if that scenario was repeated in the regular Star Trek universe. I think the First Contact Protocol is a lot more extensive and comprehensive. There's a lot of possible first contact scenarios, from "hey, cool, welcome!" to panic and attacking the landing party.
The Prime Directive is important. However, I think it isn't comprehensive.
For goodness sake. Paramount+ just gained "The spot for all Star Trek films and series" earlier this month. Now, they have to put an asterisk on that statement, "*except Prodigy."