7:46 Oh, Steve, you missed a great one. "Chain of Command" "There! Are! _Four!_ Lights!!!"

Karl Urban is great, but let's face it...DeForest Kelley is the REAL McCoy. ...I'll see myself out.

5:09 I admit the most shocking part of Les Mis is when Javert fires trilithium cannonballs at Paris.

I’m here for an episode of Discovery where Culber and Stamets just go to town on each other.

In my opinion, in your 'Top 5' of Star Trek outbursts you are missing the most iconic one: "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!"

Maybe the Carrdassians who lived on planets ceaded to the federation just liked living under Not a fascist junta for the first time and didn't make trouble

27:00 A good example of this is in the episode where Riker is serving on a Klingon ship. When they're in the mess hall, one of the Klingons says that he doesn't talk to his father, to which Riker says, "But he's your father!" implying that Riker has a good relationship with his own father. Then, a few episodes later, we meet Riker's father and find out they haven't spoken in years.

One thing that seemingly gets ignored in the whole Maquis discussion is the fact that these ceded colonies border the Cardassian Union. This means that in case of conflict, they will be the first target. Cardassian military strategy is nothing more than the order to commit as many war crimes against civilians as possible. The thing isn't "Oh I have to leave my house to end the government's war", the thing is "I have to leave my house or else get murdered by a genocidal space empire, that wants to kill me personally as brutally as possible". I'd be genuinely thankful to the government if they looked out for me like that

In the list of best outbursts you missed the granddaddy of them all... THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

"I'll be in the holodeck" is basically Riker's version of Jayne's "I'll be in my bunk."

Re: relocation - The legal principle at work here is "eminent domain." All the land really belongs to the sovereign (formally a monarch). That's the theory anyway. In the US, you might have your property taken, but you're supposed to be justly compensated. Historically, that compensation bit has been lacking.

As far as outbursts, I feel like I’d also include the parallel lines from Picard and Quark “The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”

My favorite Trek outburst is from “Skin of Evil” when Riker screams “Data something’s got meeeeeeee!” when Armus attacks him. It was also used over and over and OVER in “Shades of Grey”.

How can anyone talk about great Trek outbursts without mentioning "ITS REAAL!"?

27:10 There is a good example of this in DS9: In the first two seasons, Sisko always refers to his father in past tense, implying that his father is dead. Then Joseph Sisko shows up alive and well in "Homefront", and I think that the show is much better off for it and we can just ignore Sisko's earlier statements as some early season weirdness and leave it at that. On that same note I'm also perfectly happy with ignoring a lot of things established in the original Star Trek if it makes a better show now. They couldn't know at the time that their little wagon train to the stars would become a franchise which would keep producing shows 50 years later. I'm personally happy that every subsequent Trek production agrees that women can be starship captains, despite what was established in Turnabout Intruder.

"You need to move for this project" and "just beam that basterd out of there" reminds me of what was done to african americans when the highways were built. Or whole villages that were destroyed in germany for new coal mines. And in my eyes these are atrocities. Because it's nearly always putting your own interests over those of a minority (or in our society... capitalism over humans).

The flaw in the Bajoran not wanting to move off his moon is, that moon is lovely! And the Bajorans have been space faring people for a very long time. That moon should be loaded with Bajorans.

Centralia, PA proves that certain people will not move even when the ground under their feet is on fire and may collapse and the government has offered to buy the person's home and pay for relocation.

You forgot one incredible outburst. "The line must be drawn here, this far and no further!" as done by Quark, channeling his inner Picard!

While on the topic of greatest Star Trek outbursts. I feel I must submit, for your approval. “I created it, and it’s real!!”, “There are FOUR lights!” And of course, perhaps the most classic of them all “KHHAAAANNNN!”

I appreciate your willingness to criticise. I am glad you don't feel compelled to be an apologist for shows that can and should be allowed to stand for themselves just because bad faith or generally inane criticism exists.

The only issue I had with the Maquis storyline is that it seems that the Federation isn't very good at negotiating. The war was at a stalemate, but I always had the feeling that the Feds would eventually win, yet it seems the Cardassians got the much better deal. But I guess that's a necessary weasel for the plot to even happen.

It's always possible to take things to unhealthy extremes, but the "it's just a TV show" argument also falls flat IMO. Having a consistent, believable universe is important to enjoying a story. If you keep getting beaten over the head with fourth wall breaking gags, overt changes to the universe not explained, and "it's just a show" arguments, it makes it VERY difficult to suspend disbelief, and thus enjoy the story. That said, visual updates due to technology/the times don't really bother me much, as long as they at least try for a *somewhat* consistent look. IMO fourth wall breaking gags especially should only be in comedy. Obviously if I'm watching Spaceballs, fourth wall breaking gags don't bother me, because the entire focus of the movie is satire/parody.

9:00 I would have assumed that you hear nothing about those colonies because the Cardasians that remained there were treated well by the federation and probably enjoyed a life of comfort and luxury the likes of which only the Cardasian ruling class had known.

I care about continuity and appreciate when a show is consistent with itself. However, I don't mind if it is little things like in DS9 Sisko hints to Odo that his father died, but later he is alive and appears in multiple episodes. But things like that or just other related things, it's fun to try to make fit in the story. As a fan, I find it fun to discuss with other fans to figure how it can fit into the show's cannon. In sisko's case, his father was sick but got better makes sense with the story.

I am kind of surprised that the concept of eminent domain was never brought up in either episode/arc. Maybe that would have been too on the nose.

We agree about 50% of the time, not that you know that, but I sure look forward to hearing your opinions the moment they pop out. You're a thoughtful critic, and your different (perfectly valid) views help to refine my own, which I appreciate!

10:40 you lost a step there Steve, he didn't ask if you would give up your land. He asked if you would give up your family. Making the connection between the greater meaning of the land to some groups than simply the dirt they stand on while doing life.

Re: the relocation thing. I think your position pre-supposes that the government in question, in this case the federation is a (at least generally speaking) a force for good. I think this is where the allegory gets somewhat muddled, obfuscating the genocidal regimes of colonial America by attempting to compare it to the federation which despite it's flaws is generally a good government that acts in the interest of its citizens. Would you move to end a war between a good government that you trust and it's opponent? Sure. What about a war between two nations...both equally detestable? What if there was no war and they just wanted you and everyone like you gone? IMO the allegory is flawed.

Props to you for mentioning TV Tropes, one of THE best resources on the Internet for writers. The tropes page for DS9 is fantastic, and most (if not all) of the individual episodes have their own page. I found it to be a great way to deepen my understanding of an episode after watching it.

I have to say that when you mention Risa on those last responses, my mind went to creating a version of the cheers theme about the vacation planet. It was hilarious, and I am still laughing about it as I am writing this.

You kind of touched on a split I've noticed in sci fi audiences, between what I've taken to calling "characters people" and "immersion people". Example, I just read "Chasm City" and loved it: Very imaginitive hard sci fi setting, wild plot twists, my guesses about where it was all headed were split pretty evenly between dead-on and way off. I checked out the Amazon reviews out of curiosity, and someone was complaining that the characters weren't interesting. On reflection I could see where this person was getting that, but it had not occurred to me to be upset about it or even notice it while I was reading. I was too busy imagining what people's lives could be like in such a drastically different setting (and perhaps my personality doesn't incline me toward expecting human individuals to be interesting). Maybe your Star Trek "literalists" are that way because they're trying to enjoy Trek in a similar way and finding that the things they complain about spoil it.

They did that exact brother thing in Frasier with Martin. He says "I never had a brother..." in an early episode. Then we meet his Brother Walt in Season five. Then we never hear about him again. And I don't care...

I'm not a stickler for continuity as much as I'm a stickler for good writing. The enterprise changed? Okay, it looks cool that's fine. The Klingons changed? Well first of all they look dumb and second of all they removed a lot of the nuance in Klingon culture that TNG and DS9 put in. Disco wanted t o have a bad guy and they picked the Klingons but Klingons had already evolved past the point of being simple bad-guys in other trek. I'm not upset that they changed them, I'm upset that they changed them poorly.

Steve, I get what you're trying to say with your "relocating because of a dam" analogy, and I agree that that particular scenario wouldn't be genocide. But I gotta say, I don't think it's a perfect analogy. In this case, it's the people of one town, being moved to another town. There's no significant change in culture. The same is not true for the Maquis. As you pointed out in your own video on the subject, Journey's End is a pretty direct metaphor for America's own transgressions in this area, ie, the Trail of Tears. We are told, both in Journey's End and throughout multiple episodes of DS9, that relocating the colonists would destroy their way of life. I especially recall that bit in Journey's End about how when the colonists got there, the mountains and trees sang to them. That's not poetry or hyperbole, that's a deeply held spiritual belief - and whether or not we (or the Federation) believe it's literally true is irelevant, the outcome is the same: The Federation is trying to remove a population from a planet, when that population's cultural identity is tied to being specifically on that planet. That's a form of cultural genocide. It might not be the kind of genocide with concentration camps and casualty statistics, but it's still a genocide. I also think it's worth noting the same thing I always note when talking about anything involving marganalized groups (that I'm not a part of, anyway): I'm not the one defining this sort of thing as genocide. But as someone trying to be an ally, I'm not going to argue with similarly marginalized folks who do define it that way.

I choose to believe that everything in Star Trek is a recreation from logs that are imperfect, I also choose to believe Kirk is famously a big liar who wrote self insert real life fic when he got bored. Space Rome has its own Space Jesus? Yeah Kirk was bored.

I think the biggest problem Star Trek has with visual continuity is "Relics." If they had not so faithfully recreated the bridge of the 1960s Enterprise, I think they might have avoided all of the ire created by different types of Klingon foreheads.

I agree that all of the Kelvin timeline cast put in wonderful performances; for me, Quinto and Urban did a truly magnificent job of channeling the OG characters while also giving it just enough of their own flavor.

The problem I have with the Discovery Klingon Argument is changing the Klingons in Discovery was an artistic choice not an upgrade due to new technology. Star Trek has been able to do fairly detailed costume and makeup for aliens for awhile. And the TNG era look of the Klingons had decades of being established as 'the look'. With minor tweaks but no major retools. What Discovery did wasn't like changing the Trill who litterally had a one off story appearance in TNG before being rebooted and remade in DS9. Changing them NOW after the Terry Ferrell version of the Trill had such a long stretch establishing them, their world, and their culture would be a bigger deal. I can mostly accept Discovery for what it is, I just actually HATE the Klingon/Monster redesign in season 1. I like them as these kind of Viking-like characters. Or something out of Norse Mythology. They are kinda boisterous and fun even when they are being horrible people, even before the long hair/forehead redesign. The TOS Klingons general idea remained even in the redesign for the TOS era Movies. In Undiscovered country, we are suppose to see the racism against them as congruent with racism in human history. We are suppose to see them as people not alien. That's harder to do when they are monsters with bone armor and a real lack of that boisterous fun they had before. I remember how often Worf was actually a stick-in-the-mud for being so rigid with other Klingons. While the forehead/long hair redesigned gave them a more alien look in the movies/TNG era, I don't feel like their characters changed all that much. I feel like Discovery decided they needed the more monsterous elements of the Klingons turned up to 11 and created (less fun) monsterous Klingons to go with it. I don't actually mind the spore drive or the updated designs or embracing the tech we have now to do interesting things with Star Ships. But I think the Klingon redesign was unnecessary. And absolutely not something that was the result of 'new technology' unlike some of the space ship elements. Which I am totally fine with. Even with updates in modern technology I think the constant question as NuTrek Evolves has to be 'what in this connects it to what came before' (minus words like 'Federation' and 'Starflleet'). What makes this 'Star Trek' and not just another space show. And one thing I think they should do to hold onto that is minimalistic redesigns on previously established alien species. By doing this it's like having McCoy or Scotty in TNG or going back in time in the Trouble With Tribbles and not changing the Worf design, a symbol of connection to what came before while moving forward. I actually mostly like Discovery Season 1 for it's boldness, but I think the Klingon redesign was one of those things that seemed to pull it into such a new thing it almost felt too new to be part of the old thing.

Exclamations oversights? Obvious but hard to pass over. "Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!" "There are 4 lights!"

Nobody has talked about the outburst "NO! NOOOOOOOOO!!! THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, NO FUTHER!!" from First Contact.

19:50 - Forced relocation on a interplanetary level where the people being relocated are not natives, but colonizers... not really genocide.

22:05 The dam example points to why those things are often more complicated in real life. For instance, are the claims that the dam will have long term benefits actually true? Not only do megastructures like large dams often have catastrophic environmental consequences that are willfully overlooked by those in charge (think the Three Gorges Dam), they also often have geopolitican consequences that affect the stability of a large region (think the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam). In other cases, the construction just isn't necessary. An example are the villages and forests in Germany that are to be abandoned to allow mining of lignite, even though the government has announced years ago that Germany will stop using coal within a couple of years. Going back to the in universe example, the Federation and Cardassia claim that leaving the colonies will ensure peace, but in hindsight, we know that this didn't work. The two were engaged in another, far more deadly war within a few years. One could question whether Cardassia had ever been serious about the original peace treaty, and whether the Federation had been naive to accept the deal. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think it is lost on many people in the Star Trek universe that Cardassia is not trustworthy, and the deals you make with them may come back to bite you later. I could think of a few real world parallels again, but I think I'll leave it at that.

In terms of the relocated cardassian colonies ceeded to federation space, I’m sure that Edington/Hudson (can’t remember which) had a line when Sisko said “there were cardassian colonies that also switched sides” and the response was “suuuuure and that was a great deal for those cardassians because that meant they’d have the federation looking out for their interests” But I guess I always assumed that the human and cardassian colonies were fighting each other… I guess I got that from Dukats reaction at the cardassian fighter not obeying his orders and his line to sisko “now don’t you see… without any help from you or me they’ve managed to start their own little war”

Sisko- "We're going to poison the planet, set it up Worf" Worf- "... Got it" *later* Sisko- "Worf, Fire the dirty nuke equivalents" Worf- "Wait, you were serious? Firing death bombs"

As a former Evangelical, I love the way that Star Trek has given us so many moral questions to ponder. It's a wonderful sandbox to test out ethical & moral scenarios.

Apparently I have Star Trek thoughts today, because I also wanna comment on continuity. I think the degree to which continuity is important is dependent on the writers of the show. For example, continuity never mattered to me much in old Trek because the writers made an effort to separate those shows contextually. Aside from the pilots of the shows (and the presence of O'brien and later Worf), TNG, DS9 and Voyager barely reference each other. In doing so the writers establish a framework were continuity doesn't matter much. Sure DS9 Ferengi and TNG Ferengi are very different, but the shows just treat that as a given so it works. However, in Picard, where we drowned in constant fan service and references, as if the writers are desperately trying to prove this is the same continuity as old Trek, I can't help but start questioning when the continuity doesn't add up. If you're going to hammer me over and over with the fact that these are the same characters from TNG and Voyager, then I'm going ask why does Guinan not remember Picard? Why does that not seem strange to Picard? Why is Guinan so embittered at the poverty of the 21st century, when she seemed entirely comfortable in the brutality of the 19th century? Edit: I'm pretty sure there was actually a continuity change within DS9 itself. I think the first time Sisko mentions his father, he says his father is dead, which is obviously not the case later in the show.

Star Trek "literalists" seem to forget that it is a universe. It is an entity having both Space and Time (words I didn't all cap purely out of decorum) and therefore prone to enormous variations in tone and even reality. They want to keep the thing they love so small that it may as well be smothered.

I think the reason people are committed to a consistent continuity is because those people feel that if one story contradicts another story, then it means one of those stories either "didn't matter" or was otherwise considered "wrong" in some way. It may also be because a contradiction draws attention to the fact that this is a TV show and can ruin the escapism for some. Don't get me wrong, good characters and good storytelling is more important and if I had to choose between a good story and remaining consistent, give me a good story any day. However I don't think that everyone who obsessed with continuity is a terrible person.

I love Discovery. Yes, I'm hella fing gay but that's only a tiny bit of why I like it. I like the characters in general. I like the way that they're working through "geo-political" issues and diplomacy that isn't easy.

As far as favorite Star Trek quotes you forgot Picard’s, “There are….FOUR LIGHTS!!!!” #classic

Not a fan of the ENT Klingon virus thing but I do appreciate the extra layer it adds to the joke in the DS9 episode, since Bashir & O'Brien both end up being right about what happened

@Steve Shives To the relocation-toppic That's the best attitude one can have! Fully agree

I'd say I would be on the Federation's side regarding the Maquis too, for the most part. Both the Federation and Maquis have legitimate reasons for what they did, the Federation wanted to avoid war, and the Maquis wanted their homes back. But I think the Maquis bit off more than they could chew by using violence when diplomacy was easy to reach, something even Quark was able to see and comment on when he briefly got involved with them on the station. This became especially worse when they ended up fighting battles during the Dominion War, and against both sides. Rather than help the Federation against the Dominion, the Maquis actively hindered them and could have jeopardized the whole Alpha Quadrant had they dealt a big enough blow to the Federation's resources and alliances. A more logical solution, one in line with what Quark had said before, would have been to offer an agreement. Offer to cease hostility with the Federation and assist Starfleet against the Dominion in exchange for being able to return home and rebuild if the combined efforts were successful. Granted it's not a guarantee and may be dependent on other factors, but it would be a big win for the Maquis and a better fate for them overall.

20:30 An interesting historical relocation of a population was the civilian population of Gibraltar who were evacuated during World War 2. Basically the territory could only support so many people due to lack of fresh water and other such things that when so many extra service people were based there due to the war almost all of the civilian population was evacuated. Granted this was “temporary” (some gibraltarians didn’t get home until 1951) but I would argue that this was necessary.

A point on something you've mention in this video (great btw): While I understand the sentiment fully, as a visual person I can't completely agree with the idea that its completely fine for certain media to look different than its previous incarnation its supposed to be within the same time-scale/continuity of, in this case Star Trek Discovery. Visual design is just as important part of the storytelling as acting or special effects are, and I think to wholesale dismiss it isn't the best way to go about analysing media as it is also a part of the collective effort on part of the artists and producers to tell the story and direction of any given show or movie. To me while visual redesigns and updates are understandable and necessary part of any medium (one that I am in full favour of as well), there is also a difference between the updating of technical finesse to match today's standards (such as the update between the Batsuits in live-action Batman films, or the look of the Daleks in Doctor Who, etc), and outright complete replacement of the visuals for something else entirely. In Star Trek Discovery's case, given the intent was to be a prequel set a few years before TOS, changing everything about the look of TOS (even if dated by today) is still a blunder in storytelling I think (which they themselves pretty much admitted with quaint lines like "no more holograms" in S2 or completely shifting the setting to the farther future of Star Trek so to lessen obvious aesthetical clashes). For one it of course undercuts one of the key marketing points of the new series which was to be a TOS prequel, shows a kind of timidness and fear to really challenge itself and the audience by daring to do things for a specific vision and story direction, and its also disappointing because it creates a vastly less interesting and less challenging visual look for Star Trek Discovery, that could've had a chance to make it stand apart from other space-opera scifis we have now. (TNG for example, while very 80s with its wood-paneling, soft hues and carpets, still looks nothing like much of the other, Cyberpunk-y 80s Scifi that was running concurrently at the time, and thus stands out as an iconic visual fixture of scifi.) It also threatens to dismiss and undercut the honest effort and genuinely good work many of the people behind TOS made under so many restraints. Its the reason why Prometheus, while technically more "realistic" and high-production, is less interesting to watch than original 1979's Alien, as Alien's overall visual design from its ship interiors to character costuming and everything else actually do convey a certain kind of story and atmosphere immediately to the audience, while Prometheus doesn't truly stick in your mind visually outside of the Giger leftovers, and only begs the audience to ask obvious questions like "where were the holograms in Alien, and why does everything look more advanced when its set centuries before?" (which, while we can debate how exactly "smart" those questions are, are still legitimate questions in terms of storytelling, esp. considering how those Alien prequels have not fared very well in terms of storytelling to begin with...). Had the show been from the getgo resembled that of the S2 Pike's Enterprise look, and been that kind of modern updating of the retro-futuristic 60s "Atompunk, polishing what worked before while perhaps changing or taking out some of the lesser low-budget parts (making Klingons not just dudes in yellow-stripes and brownface, but also not go as extreme as DIscovery's super-gothic bald orcs, and strike a happy medium between the two), it would for one been way more fun and interesting to watch, immediately bring new Star Trek an identity all to its own, and would at least give less ammo for the annoying and loud people out there. So all in all my point is, visual artistry shouldn't be wholesale take n off the conversation just because many of the worst people have ruined the discussion. It is just as important part of the story as anything. Not as important as writing and characterization of course, but still a key component in bringing these elements together on-screen.

Just gonna mention Janway's ancestor that was the only one that didn't want to sell his bookstore as probably the lowest example.

What I appreciate about your critique of Trek, positive or negative, is that you remain steadfast and true in what you think and respectfully and constructively give your opinion. This is something I have frustratingly tried to latch onto with various reviewers and Trek youtubers during this new era of Trek. I have a particular problem with foolishly negative bad faith horseshit “critiques” but I also dislike hyper sycophantic raving of every aspect of Trek as if to counter the blatantly negative discourse. It only serves to make fandom unbearable. Finding people that know how to give a decent critique of Trek regardless of what others think will always be a priority for me and you master that in spades! Cheers!

Just a tiny nitpick, the Cardassians in Federation space/the Neutral zone (I've never really understood the difference in this context) definitely didn't abandon their colonies. Remember the resolution for the poisoned planets is that the Maquis and the Cardassian colonists just switched planets, so there were definitely still Cardassians in the region.

My favorite outburst will always be Spock's THE PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN with The Horta ... but, how could Kirk's classic KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN not be up there in the top 5? It even earned a crappy Spock redux of it. Love your stuff.

When Worf hesitates to fire I always picture him with a little Picard on one shoulder, calmly telling him to think about the consequences of his actions. But on the other shoulder is a tiny Sisko yelling "HE BETRAYED HIS UNIFORM!". I can't say I blame him for firing. I'd be terrified of a tiny Sisko as well.

Man, I love Sisko. "Nah I'm not gonna fire at Marquis raiders, I'm gonna hit an entire planet."

also up there for "top emotional outbursts in trek": Picard: "DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!" (to Riker in "Sarek") Picard: "The line must be drawn HERE. THIS FAR, NO FURTHER. And Iiiiiii will make them PAY for what they've done!!" (to Lily in "First Contact") Sisko: "You really want to do this? Here?! NOW?! OKAY LET'S DO IT!" (to Dukat in "Duet") Quark: "THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE. THIS FAR, NO FURTHER." (to Rom in "The Dogs of War") Sisko: "YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT BALL WAS OVER THE PLATE! WHAT WERE YOU DOING, REGENERATING?!" (to Odo in Take me Out to the Holosuite")

12:50 The same could be said about the denizens in Star Trek: Insurrection. It might not just be one, but numerically speaking, the number of people who would benefit from the system's radiation properties would have been similar to, if not greater, than the number of Bajorans who would benefit in this scenario. One person impeding the progress of a planet or two versus a few hundred or so impeding the progress of the entire United Federation of Planets and its partner entities like Bajor.

So, we're wrapping up the video. Final words are being said. And you mention a commission video-which is not the first time I've ever heard of such a thing-but it made my tired AF brain sparkle with deliciously devious creativity. OKay, maybe that creative but hear me out. A Trek Actually video, examining.... Star Trek Fan Films. lol I don't think this is something that you would enjoy doing honestly, but the idea of it made me chuckle nonetheless.

For the record, I don't think the sacredness of your home justifies terrorism. That can get flipped around into manifest destiny real quick. I was just taking issue with the characterization of the people in Journey's End as being sentimental. And I think a lot of native americans would agree with you that leaving your home or living under foreign occupation to stop a war is the right call.

So you say that you don't mind if something is retconned within part of the same series, like your fictional example of Picard's brother, but what if a show is aiming for internal consistency? Like, while there are some retcons in Babylon 5, that's a show that's aiming to be consumed as one large storyline, so surely you can hold it to continuity a little harder? I understand as a writer sometimes you just need to retcon something to make the thing you're currently doing better, I'm just wondering about the grey area, where a large-but-still-episodic story is wanting you to be aware of continuity

I do agree if you Steve with With some elements of the fandom That's called " the fandom menace" they need to stop talking about defending Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future. His vision of the future is about humanity improving itself. Yet they Themselves are Close-minded and bigoted. It's Star Trek the franchise that has the saying Infinite diversity in infinite combinations Star Trek's always been about diversity they need to stop complaining and be a fan of a different Sci-fi franchise

Now what's interesting about the dam scenario is that that happened near where I live in Butler, TN and it is still talked about to this day

Holy s*** they are making another new trek movie? I did not know that, usually I watch your videos for a bit of banter and fun. However this time you have literally slapped me across the face with some good news, the best kind that you don't see it coming until it hits you. Usually that's sort thing is an overdue bill not a piece of good news, you have legitimately cheered me up and put a smile on my face. Thanks for the good word brother.

I love the cast of the Kelvin timeline movies. I wasn't impressed with Zoe Saldano in them, the first time i became aware of her, but since Guardians of the Galaxy I really want her character to be the focus of film. The big three are fun but we've explored them. Give Ohurra a true plot.

Steve about people who like new Star Trek for reasons he doesn’t: confused (deeply) but enthusiastically supportive

I wish Beckett's personality was examined in a light that shows some kind of connection between her rapidly changing emotional states, correlated to bipolar disorder, taken out of the context of the high paced comedical setting, the comparison is striking. Going from happy, aggressive, depressed, and back again in quick succession seems out of place even in Lower Decks. I've always wanted to make this comment but couldn't find a good place to bring it up. Sorry if it's completely out of place. Love the videos!

Fix continuity with this one weird trick: everything after what we leave behind takes place in the moriarty simulated universe. Tng movies, enterprise, discovery, picard, undecided on Voyager but it mostly checks out.

I liked the first Kelvin timeline movie, as a movie. I wasn't thrilled about it as Star Trek, but was mainly sad about that because I didn't think we'd ever get more Trek that felt like what I grew up with. (That eventually changed when they made Discovery.) But I didn't like Into Darkness at all, and because of that never got around to watching Beyond. But a lot of time has passed and my tastes may have changed, so maybe I'll give those movies another chance at some point.

And to the diverse-toppic That's also the best attitude one can have! Fully agree

Speaking of LBGTQ being new. In the episode of TNG The Outcast Jonathan Frankes wanted Soren to be played by a male actor. I always found that to be an interesting side note.

The "horny" freakout really is about the gay stuff. Stamets and Culber are the most wholesome couple in Trek history, even beating out Sisko and Cassidy Yates. They're almost too sweet, and I'm not even gay.

Patience always helps. I mean, we still haven't had an above average Trek movie since First Contact with Star Trek Beyond being okay and the previous films ranging in different levels of mediocrity. As a Star Wars fan I've had only Solo and Rogue One since 2005, and no good TV since 2003 until Mandalorian.

Good insights, as usual. I do have a couple of thoughts: 1) This has been mentioned elsewhere, but the Cardassian colonies under Federation control might have enjoyed the greater freedom under Federation rule. True, some still would have left for their original empire, but the rest might have stayed willingly. Of course, the possibility of spies creates a third path. 2) Star Trek never officially said what happened to the Native American colony. We don't know if they had members join the Marquis. It's also unclear if the ex-Federation colonies were all wiped out (though I did here a piece of dialogue that said hundreds of thousands were lost, implying entire colonies were destroyed). Still, the best-case scenario for the Native American colony was that when the Dominion took over the tribe fled back to Federation space (forced relocation). Otherwise, they were subjugated or worse. Perhaps it was smart that the franchise never revisited that subplot, because this sounds like a really bad and uncomfortable end to the story.

Good video as always Steve. One thing that I think should have been mentioned in both the Maquis and Eddington episodes is that they were ultimately right. The treaty that they gave up so many planets for gave only what fiveish years of peace before Cardassia plunged the whole Quadrant into another war. I would argue that many of the starfleet officers who defected to the fight didn't do so purely out of their sympathies for the colonists but also because like Captain Maxwell in "The Wounded" they didn't trust the Cardassian Union. I'm sure a lot of veterans of the earlier war believed the bureaucrats back on Earth were being too light-handed with their former enemy and it was only a matter of time before the phasers would be firing again. They fought for these convictions. They ultimately died for them. Their slaughter was a harbinger for the wholesale destruction that was soon to come. On another point I think you were fair with your review of Picard, I don't think it was terrible per say but they could have done it better. I can't comment on your other reviews of new trek because as of now I haven't been able to see them. The executives' plan to make yet another streaming service that fans have to pay for is one I am reluctant to surrender to. I would like to know your opinion on these developments.

Regarding "Progress": it's essentially an episode about eminent domain. For those who don't know what that is, here's the definition:: Eminent domain: the process by which the government may seize private property with proper compensation, but without the owner's consent. Property taken by eminent domain may be for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development. The most common uses are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways and railroads. There is an argument to be made that the neighborhoods and even towns plowed through by, say, a new highway, all too often fall into economic ruin and become "ghost towns." This happened, for instance, to the towns and neighborhoods reachable via (the famous Route 66) during and after the building of the interstate highway system, which was undertaken by the Eisenhower administration. [See THE LAST PICTURE SHOW] Not judging...just pointing out the other side of the argument.

I hope someone makes a Best Star Trek Outbursts montage video. And I always assumed we didn't hear about the Cardasian colonies in Federation space was because all the inhabitants were treated well and allowed to live their lives relatively undisturbed, and maybe even prospered more under the Federation.

Always love yr perspective Steve. I do disagree about Picard, I’m loving it. Thx for including all views, your take is welcoming & calming, as far as fandom usually goes… Much appreciated.

I actually super appreciate the fact that we have differing opinions about some of the new Trek shows- I like to avoid the echo chamber

My top 3 trek outbursts: 1 - There are FOUR lights! 2 - KHAAAAAAAAAN! 3 - You betrayed your uniform!

Completely agree on your opinion on new Trek. I love Star Trek, I've loved it since I caught the last 5 minutes of Eye of the Beholder 20+ years ago. I like new Trek, it's not the best. Discovery could be better, Picard could be better, I really like Lower Decks. None of the new Trek hits quite like classic Trek though. And they really need to learn how to stick the landing on a finale, because I don't think there's been a satisfying conclusion to a new Trek show yet. Does that mean I'll stop watching it? Not at all, I'd like it to be better, I'd like it to be as good as classic Trek, but this is the Star Trek we have now and I'll support it regardless. None of the shows are inherently bad, just underwhelming. I just don't understand the mindset of people who hate it but still watch it, purely with the intention of complaining about it. Who's got time for that? Watch another show maybe?

To the End Ok you old Krucker... that earned you a Subscription!!

Odd tangent on relocation. Even when I was very young, I thought it would be nice to send people who were still mentally active but their bodies were failing them, to Talos. Voluntarily, of course. Win-win.

BONES/Spock I think makes sense and the TOS begins after their deep romance has ended and this explains the friction between them and the affection that sometimes comes through.

I had two thoughts on the issue of relocation. I agree with you that the moon farmer from DS9 should get beamed away. But from Star Trek Insurrection, I fall on the side of Picard when the evil admiral mentions how few need to be relocated and Picard retorts back on what is the number where it is ok. It reminds me of how much I appreciate Star Trek bringing up questions like these for us to discuss and more importantly, to question and resolve internally. I find that this sliding greyscale has a lot to do with each instance's circumstances as well as the execution. But the question itself, as well as your arguments, makes me question my own convictions. Am I wrong about the moon farmer? If the admiral wasn't evil, would relocating the Ba'ku be ok? I also wanted to bring up that there are several towns in the US that have been evacuated, not just because of a civil project like you mentioned but because of the land being poisoned in some way, usually by a company. Those relocations come because of safety issues, but my understanding is that some small number of those populations stay behind anyway. But to reinforce your point, that the situation is a bad one and no fault of the person being relocated, but still those relocations are seemingly the best course of action.

You are by far the most thoughtful and matured commenter making 'reaction or response' videos to trek or scifi in general. I genuinely enjoy your take. in fact i really feel like it would be most enjoyable to share a beer or two with you.

Speaking of merch, where could one purchase the Chateau Picard shirt?

Worf, upon realizing the target of the torpedoes "Would Picard do this? No, he wouldn't. But Sisko is not Picard!"

"Just repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show. I should really just relax.'" PS: Am I the only one who actually likes the Klingon genetic thingie from Enterprise?

Another TOS emotional outburst. When it is revealed that Romulans and Vulcans share a history. That extremely raised eyebrow. What an emotional outburst from that out of control Vulcan.

“There are four lights!” ~ Picard

I feel like “THERE! ARE! FOUR LIGHTS!!!!” Deserves a mention too 🖖

Eddington was like "I'm a whale!"

Steve, for some cultures like some Native American cultures (and by extention the Maquis in Star Trek) the place where they live is an *essential* part of their culture. You remove them from that place, you take away a huge part of their culture. And by some definitions that can be considered a form of genocide, since you would be essentially killing (or at least drastically changing) their culture in the long run. It's not just a matter of "you'll have the same comforts in this other place", it's a matter of "you will have a huge part of your culture destroyed one way or another."