Stun.
Are there any fan-favorite/well liked Characters (from any Trek) that you just can't stand?
- Thread starter ILoveVoyager
- Start date
Knowing the character of Picard. Wouldn't you think he would've weighed that possibility before pulling the trigger?
No
You should have thought about that when targeting McCoy!
Bones is a witty and cool character but he's just (lowkey) (I'm sorry) not a good doctor. (in my opinion, of course)
"...not a good doctor"
Based on what evidence? If anyone ever watched TOS (and TAS), McCoy was one of the most inventive, insightful doctors (which leans toward success) ever created for the ST franchise. Time after time, he faced the unknown which threatened individuals ("Miri", "The Pirates of Orion", "The Deadly Years", etc.), the entire crew ("The Naked Time"), healed a species he never encountered or studied before (the Horta from "The Devil in the Dark"), or worlds (see TAS' "Albatross" ), along with other, near-endless examples. His medical and creative strengths to save lives were largely unparalleled.
Where bedside manner is concerned (a very important trait in medicine with direct contact with patients), there's never been a friendlier, human doctor in franchise history.
Do not get me started on the other series' doctors....
That was my perception of Picard since the premiere of "Encounter at Farpoint", and his pomposity only grew as TNG lurched along.
McCoy 2.0.
Agreed.
Last edited:
If it helps, we really got a disjointed story. Q was supposed to be involved and this episode was supposed to lead into "Q, Who" (IIRC). It was originally supposed to be a test from Q about whether humans could think outside the box.
Are there any fan-favourite/well liked characters I can't stand?
No, not really. Neelix took a few seasons to stop being annoying, but he's not a fan favourite. Captain Archer had his problems, but I probably liked him more than a lot of people. Discovery did its best to make me dread seeing certain characters around season 4, but it's not that I couldn't stand them.
No, not really. Neelix took a few seasons to stop being annoying, but he's not a fan favourite. Captain Archer had his problems, but I probably liked him more than a lot of people. Discovery did its best to make me dread seeing certain characters around season 4, but it's not that I couldn't stand them.
You're right, I should have thought about thatYou should have thought about that when targeting McCoy!
"...not a good doctor"
Based on what evidence? If anyone ever watched TOS (and TAS), McCoy was one of the most inventive, insightful doctors (which leans toward success) ever created for the ST franchise. Time after time, he faced the unknown which threatened individuals ("Miri", "The Pirates of Orion", "The Deadly Years", etc.), the entire crew ("The Naked Time"), healed a species he never encountered or studied before (the Horta from "The Devil in the Dark"), or worlds (see TAS' "Albatross" ), along with other, near-endless examples. His medical and creative strengths to save lives were largely unparalleled.
Where bedside manner is concerned (a very important trait in medicine with direct contact with patients), there's never been a friendlier, human doctor in franchise history.)
Here are my reasons for my claim
1. Bones often lets his emotions dictate his medical opinions or decisions. While compassion is good, he can be overly opinionated and reactive, especially when clashing with Spock or during high-stress missions.
2. He regularly expresses skepticism or outright hostility toward advanced technology and artificial intelligence—odd for someone practicing medicine in the 23rd century. This could hinder medical innovation or adaptation.
McCoy occasionally makes decisions that would violate contemporary medical ethics—such as treating patients without consent, experimenting with untested treatments, or interfering in alien cultures.
3. Bones is often seen jabbing people with hyposprays without warning or explanation. While it makes for quick TV scenes, it could be seen as hasty and not compassionate.
4. He frequently challenges Captain Kirk in emotionally charged ways, sometimes undermining the chain of command. While his moral compass is admirable, this behavior can be disruptive during critical missions.
5.His Racism towards Vulcans has always rubbed me the wrong way. McCoy frequently makes sarcastic or demeaning remarks about Spock’s Vulcan heritage. This could be seen as unprofessional and culturally insensitive, even if it's supposed to be friendly banter.
6. There are a few episodes where Bones misdiagnoses or fails to catch something until it's nearly too late. For example, he sometimes doesn't detect alien influences or diseases until things escalate dangerously.
I understand the love of Bones, of course. He's just not my cup of tea.
Here's the thing: characters can be fascinating and compelling without being admirable. Not the same thing. Just as finding drama and amusement in a character is not same thing as "praising" them.
It's interesting. When it comes to fictional characters, I find that folks often interpret "best" and "worst" very differently.
For some, "best" means the most likeable or virtuous.
For others, "best" means the most skilled or talented, as in the "best" doctor or engineer is the most expert one.
And for some us, the "best' character is simply the most interesting and entertaining one.
This leads to us talking past each other sometimes:
"Dmitri is the best character, period."
"Dmitri? He's a morally ambiguous hot mess who is often his own worst enemy."
"Exactly!"
While I'll grant that, that has not been the majority of my experience in real life with friends.
Shouldn't have posted so quickly: I will agree on this too. But, again I don't find most criminals or crime operations characters entertaining.
I not a big fan of gangster movies myself, but not on moralistic grounds. They just don't push my buttons.
But I love a good heist film or film noir or black comedy.
And, to cite just one literary example, I think it's fair to say that Long John Silver is the best and most compelling character in Treasure Island, even though the book makes it very clear that he's a back-stabbing, murderous scoundrel (albeit a chummy, gregarious one).
To my mind, the "worst" character is the most boring one. Being dull is among the worst crime a fictional character can commit.
Bringing this back to Trek, that's probably why I find characters like Q or McCoy or Ro or Seven or the EMH more colorful and compelling than more blandly "nice" and personable characters.
Last edited:
Pick one!
Actually I'd like examples of all six. Okay, maybe not number 5. Though there Spock often give as well at he gets with snarky remarks about humans.
I guess I'm a weird guy. Dull doesn't bother me.
Captain Esteban fan?
Not a fan but he's not a character who bothers me either. And Saavik quotes regulations to Kirk a movie before and gets praised.
She's not dull about it, though.
Good for her. He's still right.
We're talking dull not right, right?
For me, if a character has a point, is right, or consistent, they're less full.
But, dull is something I'm less aware of because things others consider dull I'm fascinated by.
Similar threads
- Poll
