this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)

Risa

6912 readers
169 users here now

Star Trek memes and shitposts

Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I barely have time as it it. Please, don't make me do the writers, too!

Also, if you actually look into the graph, note that data points have X axis error bars of +-1.

For those who don't want to open Desmos:

Edit: Added the Harry spike for that timeline where he had a kid with Tom's daughter, as well as a gap for Neelix and Tuvok during the whole Tuvix thing.

Another Edit: Fixed the line connecting episodes 69 and 70 for Neelix.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

is that chakotay spike actually him, or the holodeck him from 7 of 9's program? it's been a while

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

I in general just kind of found the entire Seven-Chakotay romance really weird.

In my opinion, Seven wasn't necessarily emotionally mature enough for a romantic relationship. I don't mean to call Seven a child, but because she'd been part of the Borg since she was a kid, it meant Seven never learned some important social abilities. It's not necessarily my place to judge, but I feel like Seven was nudged towards romantic relationships at a point in her life when she wasn't necessarily ready.

Of course, this is really complicated, bordering on a c/DaystromInstitute question. You know, rather than boring you with the details, I'll actually just go create that post real quick, assuming a suitable one doesn't exist.

Also, I'm a just a bit bitter the whole Chakotay-Janeway thing never worked out. I get there was professionalism stuff, but dating your astrometrics officer is probably weirder. I usually don't particularly root for couples in shows, but there was legitimate chemistry between Janeway and Chakotay, especially in VOY:Resolutions.

load more comments (1 replies)