Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

All the movies have their individual problems and the FX in Five sucked. But I did find big parts of the story in Five interesting. The part of the over all story that I felt was a let down was all through the movie it was over and over, we're looking for God, we're going to find God, we're going to find God. I thought at the end of the movie TPTB should have let Kirk, you know, find God. Maybe at a personal level somehow.

Kirk stated "I need my pain!," the end of the movie could have had a series of events that alleviated his need for a personal internal demon.

 

If the FX were better & the finale was intact (it was truncated due to budget slashes) it wouldn't be a bad flick at all IMO.

 

In an episode of Buffy, Andrew referred to Giles as a Silly silly British man for being a bad D&D player. It was such a LOL moment, I use it a lot...

 

Unpopular opinion?

Star Trek (1966-69) is the only genuine Star Trek series, warts and all. Most anything else is a watered down interpretation with an occasional rare nugget worth noting.

ST09 is a stupid film and not worthy of its name.

Post Roddenberry Trek generally isn't worth a damn.

DS9 is a ripoff of Babylon 5.

 

Or it's the other way around. I certainly felt that way the first time I saw Babylon 5 on VHS back in 2000.

But truthfully, I love both DS9 and B5 so much that I don't give a shit which copied the other, if either did. As far as I'm concerned, I have two space station based series to enjoy (now on DVD).

 

B5 was already in development and being shopped before DS9 was an idea.

 

Mostly agree. But the new FX on TOS make it even more amazing, even if it's just a quick 'surface polish.'

A case can definitely be made for that, yet I will enjoy it for what it is, which is not much when compared to STIV, admittedly (Dedicated Shat fan here).

I'd say "worth a darn," but, whatever.

True.

 

Yes, I've heard the story. I would be interested in Paramount (or Berman's) side of the story, but I don' think we've ever heard it.

Have we?

 

DS9 and B5 are hardly the first sci-fi series set aboard space stations, so I don't see how either can be a ripoff of the other.

 

You said it. Why not? A body that looks and feels just like yours now but is immortal? YOU get sick and die after less than a century because it's natural.

Similarly, you stick to crappy replicated copies of food because your ideology says nothing new can ever be better than something old.

 

TOS is garbage and shouldn't be considered canon. It was only thought of as good because most other tv and film up to that point was even worse garbage.

Star Trek began with the movies, established its foundation with TNG, and reached its full potential with DS9.

 

To my knowledge the only individual involved with DS9 to address the issue is Robert Hewitt Wolfe (one of the main DS9 writers for seasons 1-5), who answered the question online.

Q: Okay lets try to put an end to this controversy by Babylon 5 fans who keep insisting that DS9 stole its story ideas from that show. I love both series but it grates me to hear B5 fans constantly complain about this, especially considering that B5 actually had some plots and some story ideas and some character traits that were seen on DS9 first. Robert, how much of Babylon 5 did you and the rest of the writing team watch? Did you watch any of it at all? How do you feel about the charges leveled at you and the DS9 team by B5 fans?

A: We never watched B5. I still have barely seen any of it. And the charges of plagiarism are utter, complete, and vile b*llsh*t. Does that answer your question?

 

^ I have only seen the pilot/movie "The Gathering" and first episode of season 1 of B5, but based on the overall setting of the show as seen there... What exactly did DS9 "rip off"?

It takes place on the space station? Okay...
The commander is a human male. A really, really rare thing in Science Fiction, obviously.
The second in command is a woman. Wow, what a novel idea! This is obviously a rip off, since women make up only half of the population.
There are some aliens on the station.
Some of the alien races have problems with each other because of their history. Wow, another amazing, unheard-of idea.

Well, obviously a rip-off.

What else is there? They are just both SF shows that take place on space station and feature a lot of politics. How many space operas take place on a starship, and are they all rip-offs of each other?

Not to mention that DS9 was based on the Bajoran/Cardassian situation - which was first established in TNG season 5, in 1991.

 

And JMS claims to have come up with the B% story in 1987, which, I guess is possible.

 

No, I don't either. Particularly since I've only ever heard one side of that story from the people involved.

 

The only answer to this delusion is to the nth degree.

 

While I don't exactly agree with the guy, I can see where he's coming from with that opinion. I got into TNG, Star Trek II & IV, and DS9 long before "Star Trek" and if I had to choose one to be wiped from existence between the four, it would be "Star Trek". I have liked and watched "Star Trek" very much for about two years now, but I think of it more as a nice novelty addition to the franchise, which I believe would do just fine without it.

I know that's a little weird since it was the whole catalyst for the franchise, but to me it's far from the franchise's peak. I was a huge Star Trek fan for many years without ever seeing the original series, and I think I still would have been if the movies and other shows had turned out the same way without it coming first. Without TNG, on the other hand, I don't think I'd have nearly as much reverence for Star Trek. The original series is fun and occasionally genuinely touching, but the other shows and the even numbered movies (except "Nemesis") are so much more resonant, sophisticated, and consistently written.

 

I'm sure the rest of the franchise would be fine without the following:

The Starship Enterprise
Vulcans
Romulans
Klingons
United Federation of Planets
Starfleet
United Earth Space Probe Agency
Phasers
Photon Torpedoes
Transporters
Warp Drive
Zephram Cochrane
Andorians
Tellarites
Kang
Kor
Koloth
Montgomery Scott
Leonard McCoy
Spock
Dilithium Crystals
Psi 2000 virus
Saucer separation
Prime Directive
Number One
Cestus III
Orions
Orion Slave Girls
Pike City
Tribbles
The Starship Defiant

What is people's fascination with eliminating Star Trek from the franchise? Is it some type of jealously?

 

QUOTE from Bill J: "What is people's fascination with eliminating Star Trek from the franchise? Is it some type of jealousy?"

Stylistically it doesn't fit post-1987 Trek. It is the minority (one series vs. 3 or 4). Its style is off-putting to many not raised with it.

OPINION: Spock should have stayed dead. My apologies if this is a repeat. It's a long thread.

 

Please, these guys get their ideas through the magical process of osmosis of inside information else there would be a paper trail and law suites and the like. How did I get this idea? It just came to me out of the blue. Somebody handed me a piece of paper. I don't know who it was.