Caretaker (VOY)

[clearspira]

Its kind of funny really. They've been showing re-runs of Stargate Universe here on Sky in the UK and with the benefit of 15 years I have to say... its not all that bad. A lot of the problems stemmed from people just not being ready for this version of Stargate after two family friendly shows and I understand that. Still got its problems (lens flare being a big one) but overall its not that bad.

Why do I bring this up? Because it did ''two groups of people thrown together'' so much better than this show. You have the military and the civilians. And the military suddenly are not the heroes presented in the previous shows. They are good people - but also thugs with guns. And the civvies are good people, bad people, and people who have a reason to mistrust the military.

And by season 2, they are starting to come together, but they never do quite trust each other. Something will happen to throw open old wounds. Compare this to VOY where the Maquis storyline ended in season 1 and pretty much was forgotten until one death notice that the Dominion had wiped them out and one episode in season 7 with a Bajoran using brainwashing(?)

Voyager is a victim of its proximity to TNG. Just as SGU was a victim of its proximity to SG-1 just in different ways. VOY was unwilling to take risks, SGU took too many.

[McAvoy]

Its kind of funny really. They've been showing re-runs of Stargate Universe here on Sky in the UK and with the benefit of 15 years I have to say... its not all that bad. A lot of the problems stemmed from people just not being ready for this version of Stargate after two family friendly shows and I understand that. Still got its problems (lens flare being a big one) but overall its not that bad.

Wow. I did have to look it up. Not quite 15 years. 2009. But wow.

[clearspira]

Its kind of funny really. They've been showing re-runs of Stargate Universe here on Sky in the UK and with the benefit of 15 years I have to say... its not all that bad. A lot of the problems stemmed from people just not being ready for this version of Stargate after two family friendly shows and I understand that. Still got its problems (lens flare being a big one) but overall its not that bad.

Wow. I did have to look it up. Not quite 15 years. 2009. But wow.

Scary, isn't it?

[McAvoy]

Its kind of funny really. They've been showing re-runs of Stargate Universe here on Sky in the UK and with the benefit of 15 years I have to say... its not all that bad. A lot of the problems stemmed from people just not being ready for this version of Stargate after two family friendly shows and I understand that. Still got its problems (lens flare being a big one) but overall its not that bad.

Wow. I did have to look it up. Not quite 15 years. 2009. But wow.

Scary, isn't it?

One of those things you don't think about until it hits you.

Kinda like how last year was the 35th anniversary of TNG. Or January of this year was the 30th for DS9.

[Deledrius]

I'm not happy about any of this.

[McAvoy]

I'm not happy about any of this.

Its OK. Premiere of Enterprise happened only 22 years ago and Abrams Star Trek a mere 14 years.

Oh going by the linear progression of the TNG era in relation to the 24th century... Well we are in the 25 +th century. TNG started in 2364 and now it is 2500. Picard is a bit ahead in this though.

Wheaton is now older than Patrick Stewart when TNG first started. The actress who played little Molly O'Brien is 35.

[clearspira]

I'm not happy about any of this.

Its OK. Premiere of Enterprise happened only 22 years ago and Abrams Star Trek a mere 14 years.

Oh going by the linear progression of the TNG era in relation to the 24th century... Well we are in the 25 +th century. TNG started in 2364 and now it is 2500. Picard is a bit ahead in this though.

Wheaton is now older than Patrick Stewart when TNG first started. The actress who played little Molly O'Brien is 35.

Looking forward to WW3 in 2026.

...

Y'know, when ''First Contact'' came up with that figure back in 1996 they probably went ''yeah, just add 30 years, that'll do.'' And yet here we are in 2023 with Ukraine on fire, the Middle East hotting up, China carving up the South China sea and massive political instability across the world and suddenly it doesn't look all that unlikely anymore. Star Trek's most accurate prediction yet lol.

[McAvoy]

I'm not happy about any of this.

Its OK. Premiere of Enterprise happened only 22 years ago and Abrams Star Trek a mere 14 years.

Oh going by the linear progression of the TNG era in relation to the 24th century... Well we are in the 25 +th century. TNG started in 2364 and now it is 2500. Picard is a bit ahead in this though.

Wheaton is now older than Patrick Stewart when TNG first started. The actress who played little Molly O'Brien is 35.

Looking forward to WW3 in 2026.

...

Y'know, when ''First Contact'' came up with that figure back in 1996 they probably went ''yeah, just add 30 years, that'll do.'' And yet here we are in 2023 with Ukraine on fire, the Middle East hotting up, China carving up the South China sea and massive political instability across the world and suddenly it doesn't look all that unlikely anymore. Star Trek's most accurate prediction yet lol.

Star Trek did the same thing with Eugenics War. Add 30 years and you get to 1996. Though supermen in the Middle East seems far fetched.

[clearspira]

I'm not happy about any of this.

Its OK. Premiere of Enterprise happened only 22 years ago and Abrams Star Trek a mere 14 years.

Oh going by the linear progression of the TNG era in relation to the 24th century... Well we are in the 25 +th century. TNG started in 2364 and now it is 2500. Picard is a bit ahead in this though.

Wheaton is now older than Patrick Stewart when TNG first started. The actress who played little Molly O'Brien is 35.

Looking forward to WW3 in 2026.

...

Y'know, when ''First Contact'' came up with that figure back in 1996 they probably went ''yeah, just add 30 years, that'll do.'' And yet here we are in 2023 with Ukraine on fire, the Middle East hotting up, China carving up the South China sea and massive political instability across the world and suddenly it doesn't look all that unlikely anymore. Star Trek's most accurate prediction yet lol.

Star Trek did the same thing with Eugenics War. Add 30 years and you get to 1996. Though supermen in the Middle East seems far fetched.

We totally have the technology today to make the Khan from TOS a reality though. The Ricardo Montleban version that is a bit stronger than humans with better lungs and a bigger heart and such - less so the Cumberbatch Captain America/Wolverine version from Into Darkness.

There is one thing that all fiction seems to forget about super soldiers and that is that a super strong human is still just flesh and blood. You will always get more done with drones, jet fighters, tanks, artillery and the machine gun. Again, the Into Darkness augment is pure fantasy. This is why I cannot ever see super soldiers really being a thing. Even that fantasy favourite the suit of power armour will not help all that much as real life physics are never a concern with something like the Iron Man suit.

[McAvoy]

I'm not happy about any of this.

Its OK. Premiere of Enterprise happened only 22 years ago and Abrams Star Trek a mere 14 years.

Oh going by the linear progression of the TNG era in relation to the 24th century... Well we are in the 25 +th century. TNG started in 2364 and now it is 2500. Picard is a bit ahead in this though.

Wheaton is now older than Patrick Stewart when TNG first started. The actress who played little Molly O'Brien is 35.

Looking forward to WW3 in 2026.

...

Y'know, when ''First Contact'' came up with that figure back in 1996 they probably went ''yeah, just add 30 years, that'll do.'' And yet here we are in 2023 with Ukraine on fire, the Middle East hotting up, China carving up the South China sea and massive political instability across the world and suddenly it doesn't look all that unlikely anymore. Star Trek's most accurate prediction yet lol.

Star Trek did the same thing with Eugenics War. Add 30 years and you get to 1996. Though supermen in the Middle East seems far fetched.

We totally have the technology today to make the Khan from TOS a reality though. The Ricardo Montleban version that is a bit stronger than humans with better lungs and a bigger heart and such - less so the Cumberbatch Captain America/Wolverine version from Into Darkness.

There is one thing that all fiction seems to forget about super soldiers and that is that a super strong human is still just flesh and blood. You will always get more done with drones, jet fighters, tanks, artillery and the machine gun. Again, the Into Darkness augment is pure fantasy. This is why I cannot ever see super soldiers really being a thing. Even that fantasy favourite the suit of power armour will not help all that much as real life physics are never a concern with something like the Iron Man suit.

There might be technology today to that but not in the 1960's or 1970's. Khan was an adult by the 90's.

Here is thd thing about artillery, tanks and other machines. In the end you still need to put people in to occupy the territory and sweep what all those fancy weapons weren't able to reach, detect or target. This is the old classic Army versus bombers argument. Don't need an army when you can bomb the enemy to oblivion. Yet bombers can't do that.

Super soldiers would be very valuable to armies all over the world.

-They would have increased strength to carry more on their back or be able to fight more efficiently with the same amount of weight on their back as the normal soldier.

-Firing artillery would be quicker than normal with the quicker reflexes and increased strength as well higher endurance. Same goes for tanks.

-Quicker reflexes would come in handy in manned fighter planes. Able to take higher G forces without blacking out.

-Longer periods in between sleep cycles would be valuable throughout the military.

-Everything about a super soldier would be incredibly valuable on the ground even as a grunt.

-Better ability to take injuries and heal faster would be very valuable than normal soldiers who would may not even come back to battlefield if at all and if they did it would take weeks if not months.

There is a real reason why militaries prefer the young and that is because the body is young and keep doing things that would slow down an older person. Look at sports players. A injury in your early 20's would be much faster and would not linger as long as someone past the age of 30.

Super soldiers would be that except now during the breeding phase you can also tinker as well. So you no longer have a wide range of heights, weights, abilities between each soldier but you may end up having a more uniform army in abilities.