It certainly would have been interesting to see what they did with her over time. I have my doubts that she ever would have become a very deep character, but I'm sure she would have had some decent episodes.
At the very least, they could have done more to explore her background in a more fulfilling way than they did with the episode featuring her sister.
Well, these were "very Short Treks", which were a different thing. Just a promotional gimmick, not genuine episodes the way the original Short Treks were.
The article is a little unclear, but it's very likely he was answering a question.
Automatic doors were invented in the 1930s.
"Flip phone"-style form factors were appearing in fiction in the 20s, and had started to appear in actual electronics by the 60s, albeit as full-sized telephones and radios.
The first stylus-friendly touchscreen became available in 1962, and the first patent for such a device was filed in 1946.
I'm hopeful that they fire up the hype machine as we get closer to the premiere date - you don't want to start too early.
But we'll see. There are many reasons not to have a lot of faith in the current Paramount regime.
I mean, it’s an Academy. So there are teachers, there are students – I am being so careful, but you know there are teachers, right?
Well, those spoilers probably got her fired...
in modern Trek they don’t have any ideals to aspire to
I disagree strongly with this, and can't see how anyone could watch the shows and draw that conclusion.
learning to not impose on other civilizations
And even this is the central conflict of many TNG episodes - it's a little more indirect, but the eternal question of "how do we navigate the Prime Directive" is essentially a conflict between the characters and Starfleet (it's their rule, after all).
The newer seasons seem to miss some of this especially on that professionalism front. The kind of “British stiff upper lip” stereotype.
This presumes that that sort of stoicism is particularly aspirational or healthy, and I don't think there's anything close to universal consensus on that one.
I think something that gets missed in discussions of "utopia" is that it's not real. Utopia is not attainable, because there is no universal definition of what that would look like. It exists as a dream of the future, but that's all.
Sure, and if the core of the article is "today's values are somewhat different than those of the 90s"...yes, they are, just as the values of the 90s were different from those of the 60s. I think there's an interesting academic discussion to be had in there, but I don't think this article is it.
Yeah, and I don't buy it.
Can anyone make a serious claim that "as a rule, Starfleet is good, and the best way to be a good servant of the true and just in the world of Star Trek is by being a good Starfleet officer" is not the message of literally every current series? Even "Picard," which had arguably the most cynical take on Starfleet by virtue of featuring a number of characters who had left the organization, ended by sticking everybody back into a uniform, ready to take on the galaxy. "Starfleet is good" is the central thesis of "Prodigy," as well as "Discovery," particularly during the two most recent series.
The piece treats the crew stealing the Enterprise in SNW as something particularly meaningful, despite the fact that this sort of thing has been done repeatedly since...checks notes 1984.
It's just another tired bit about how following orders and perfect institutions are what Star Trek is really about, to hell with any evidence to the contrary.
Per Memory Alpha,