Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

The original concept (and execution) of DS9 was better than the post shake-up (Defiant/Worf/Dominion War.

 

1. I think TOS is the worst of the Star Trek series.

2. City on the Edge of Forever is the most boring and predictable episode in all of Trek.

3. Enterprise and Voyager vie for 3 place in ranking the series'.

4. DS9 is a distant second to TNG and only a main character death above Enterprise and Voyager.

5. Kirk was not that good of a captain.

6. Janeway was a good captain.

7. Nemesis is a better movie than all but TWOK and FC.

8. The Borg were not handled badly in Voyager.

9. The Dominion War should have ended with a bang, an episode(s) that really tested the Federations morals and philosophy. Like the A-bomb dropping on Hiroshima did for the USA.

10. Sela was an interesting character.

11. The Breen attack on Earth should have been more wide spread.

12. Jellico was an A@@h###e.

13. The Ferngie Episodes of DS9 were, on average, good.

14. Troi was a good character.

15. Picard was right not to infect the Borg.

16. Sisko was wrong to poison the Marquis planet.

17. The Federation instigated the war with the Dominion.

18. The Prime Directive, if it is to be kept, needs to be strictly enforced.

19. One of the series' should have had a gay character.

There's more, but I'm tired of typing.

 

Did it say the same thing when it was released in 1977?

But it matters that they are prequels. They are not the first episodes of a franchise, they are not the introduction and the beginning, except chronologically.

No, there weren't. Or else that would mean that all the people who saw Star Wars in 1977, and all who watched it before 1999 as the first film in the franchise, were doing it wrong, and were duped by the director and the producers into watching a film saga from the middle, even though it should not and cannot be watched that way... in which case it is a real mystery why it was so popular and loved. Weren't people confused with being thrown right into the middle of the story, without getting a proper introduction to the characters? Did they need to ask other people about what happened in the previous films, did they need to read short summaries of those previous films, in order to understand what's going on?

Well of course not... because Star Wars was the first film in the franchise, and it was written and directed as one. It introduced the characters and the plot, and one didn't need anything else to understand what's going on. The original trilogy worked perfectly on its own, and many would argue that it still works better that way.

George Lucas might say that he always wanted it to be episode 4, but that doesn't change the fact that it was episode 1 when it was made, and that it was made and received as the first part of the story.

Prequels are by definition not necessary to watch in order to understand a story - they are supplements to an earlier work; as the word itself implies, they are sequels set in an earlier time-frame. When someone asks me "Where do I start with Battlestar Galactica", I tell them that they need to watch the Miniseries first, then season 1. I don't tell them "You must watch Caprica first".

 

DE:



Nuff said.

Randy:

No warning that I know of. However, I usually reply to multiple people in one post if I can. I have talked on multiple forums since 2004 and I usually remember to do this type of thing. However, it slipped my mind at the time.

Anyways, in order for you to spam, though: you must have solicited a questionable link, product, or something while still being a new member. That's the only way I know you can spam.

Unless of course we are talking about the tasty treat that is extra cheap or something.

Misfit:

Yeah, sorry about that, man.
I was a little off my game at that particular moment.

Vanyel:

I agree, friend. I thought the Borg on Voyager were kick butt.

Totally. That would have been sooo awesome. Plus, I wish we seen some ground assault battles and a better starship fight, as well. That would have been the shiznit.

 

Here's mine.

Star Trek needs more women who are as capable of doing what any male character has done before them. We're not getting any of that, especially now.

 

I liked STAR TREK V..
I liked EZRI more than Jadzia
I think Gene L Coon was more important to TREK than GR
I think Shatner was a better actor on TREK than Patrick Stewart
and
I like the TREK women in skirts (should be a law on that one)

Rob

 

Jeyl:

I always thought women have gotten a fair shot on Star Trek (despite the over sexualization of a few of them).

Janeway - Captain
Kira - First Officer
T'Pol - Second in Command
Tasha Yar - Security Chief
Shelby - Tough as nails Commander
Number One - From the Cage
Seven of Nine - Essentially the Super-girl on board Voyager
Ezri - Is a Psychiatrist who joined in on a major phaser battle in AR-558.
Crusher - Doctor
Troi - Took command of the Enterprise once.
Yates - Freighter Captain
Black Captain - In Star Trek 4 (The one with the whales).
Captain of the - Enterprise C
Orion Slave Women - Are Actually the Masters or Rulers
Hoshi Sato - Ended up on top in the Mirror Universe Two Parter
Captain of the - Columbia
Women in - TNG episode who were the masters of their society
Women in - TOS episode who were the masters of their society
Edith Keeler - Headed up a Homeless Shelter All By Herself
Starships - are referred to as a she.
Enterprise Computer Voice - is female
MACO officer who kicked butt - is a female
Female Version of the - Q
B'Elanna Torres - Chief Engineer
Leah Brahms - made major contributions to the development of the Galaxy-class's warp drive system.

Robert Scorpio:

Me too. Ezri was just sexier to me. Dax is a beautiful woman but she kind of reminded me of the sister I never had.

Agreed. It definitely adds more of an air of femininity to them, thats for sure. And that's always a good thing. Especially for us guys.

 

"The Motion Picture" is my favorite Trek film. Yes, it's flawed. The pacing is slow. The Kirk/Decker conflict doesn't have a real resolution. But for me, this is the closest a Trek film got to exploring space. To me, this is about the necessity of imperfection. A powerful, super-intelligence needs human flaws to evolve beyond it's apparently perfect world view. When the scattered band of friends rejoin, they're able to solve each others problems, and save the world. And in the end, the crew get's a glimpse of the end of this stage of human exploration.

"All Good Things" is not a good series finale. It's an entertaining episode, but it shouldn't be the finale. I have no idea why people are happy that the seven year story of 7-9 characters was wrapped up with a reset button episode that affected one character.

"Voyager" is my favorite series. Again, like TMP, I know it's seriously flawed. This show never lived up to the full potential and explored the drama and conflict that the premise seemed to set up. But I loved most of these characters. Chakotay I could do without, but watching them start as a disgrunted group of misfits and grow into a familiy was a joy to watch.

I absolutely HATE all of the talk about how easily Voyager defeated the Borg. Until "Endgame," Voyager singlehandedly destroyed one Borg scout ship. Every other ship they encountered was destroyed because of someone else involvement. Even in "Endgame," they needed advanced technology from the future.

"Star Trek: First Contact" is overrated. This movie is built upside down. It starts as an epic invasion story, and quickly shrinks into "Starship Mine" with over-the-top performances.

 

I liked TMP a lot myself.

 

...And I third that. TMP felt truly alien and made you feel like you were really exploring space.

 

Good one, Deckerd. I agree...but only in my sanest moments...

Oh, and I also liked TMP a lot. (Would this be "fourthing it"?) It's not perfection or anything, but I did enjoy it, and you youngsters have no conception of what a thrill it was to finally finally finally see some new Trek again. And gosh, did it look coooooool.

 

I have to agree with this part. TMP was an exceptional experience at the time. As a college freshman, I was thrilled to see my childhood heroes on the big screen.

Over time however, its flaws have become more noticeable and the loooooooonnnnnnngggggggg flight through V'Ger is just waaaaaaayyyyy tooooooo loooooooonnnnnnggggg. Thankfully, since the movie's premiere, there has been a new invention called fast forward which makes TMP much more enjoyable to watch again.

 

Agreed with the agreers...there is something about TMP that sets it apart from the other movies..that is why when I rate the movies I leave it to the side; as i do when comparing the series..TOS is so far removed from the others, where as TNG-DS9-Voyager-Enterprise all suffer from being 'too alike'..IMO..

Rob

 

I love Star Trek: Generations

 

Again..great pick. It is, I think, third only to KHAN and XI. I love the message of generations, and I think it is more true to TNG than First Contact. I know we're in the minority on this, but it is what it is.

Rob

 

I don't think Khan was that great a villain, nor was WOK THAT good a movie. It was okay, but not great.

 

In fairness, the Episode IV: A New Hope bit was added for the 1981 re-release.

 

(Smacks)

Shut up, commie!

 

Shazam:

Yes this is true.

In fact, George Lucas originally wrote a movie storyline that was intended to be just one movie (Which was released in 1977). However, once he began writing the screenplay for the movie, it got to be too long, so he decided to break it into multiple films (3, representing the original 3 Star Wars movies). He completed the screenplay for just the first, and completed the film. However, in the meantime he had to develop a story line to explain the history of the characters in the movie. It wasn't really his intent to make movies out of the backstory, but it provided a history of the fictional worlds that he had created to explain how the circumstances in the story came to be. After the success of the first film, Lucas considered converting his backstory into more films. So after a short period of four years, he established the original Star Wars as the fourth chapter in 1981 and eventually produced the three prequel films many years later.

So was it Lucas's original intent from the beginning to create a prequel series? No.

However, was their enough pre-established back story information to do a prequel series? Yes.

Did it seem natural within the story that there might have been some prequel story or story lines to tell? Yes.

Was the re-wording of the 1st Star Wars (in the opening crawl) as the 4th chapter established early enough (as if it was supposed to be there)? Yes. I believe four years is a short enough time to establish new rules for a fictional universe.

Although Lucas didn't intend to make the prequels from the very beginning. Things flowed together naturally enough (in the early years of Star Wars) as if the prequels were supposed to be a part of the saga, though.

I mean, if he decided putting chapter numbers into the original trilogy after it was totally completed... then it would have been a bit after the fact. However, seeing he established the numbering of the chapters close enough to Empire Strikes Back's release, it helped redefine or fine tune the original story early enough at the beginning of the Star Wars saga (as if it was originally supposed to be there).

I mean, the numbering of Star Wars was kind of like a work in progress, for me. At least that's my take on it, anyways.

In other words, it was by a lucky coincidence that he had the stones already set into place for a prequel series (even though it was not originally conceived of at the very beginning).

I mean, does it really matter if he thought of making a prequel series a few years later or at the very beginning?

For me, there is no difference and the result is still the same. Whether Lucas intended to create a prequel series or not; the stones were already laid out and it was quickly established for us to expect a possible prequel series some time in the future if things went well.

 

What seems to be a pretty unpopular opinion, or at least worthy of having threads derailed:

Trek is not popular because it is optimistic. Trek is popular when it is good TV (or film, or books, or whatever). The optimism is not essential to Trek. Trek is still Trek, even if it becomes wrist-slashingly pessimistic. Trek happened to be optimistic in 1966 on a limited yet important issue - this says nothing about anything else.

Less broadly:

1. Replicators are among the worst ideas of Trek, ever. They strangle storytelling.

2. Holodecks come very close, as do transporters that can do more than move you from point A to point B with any regularity; but neither induces wall-banging as quickly as the replicator.

3. Utopia bores me. If I could go back in time, I'd do my damnedest to try to convince the TNG writing staff how the whole "Federation as Utopia" and "moneyless economy" ideas of S1 are so bad for storytelling that, regardless of their source, they need to be ejected.

4. The original series may have been good TV for the 60s - however, it ages horribly. Similarly, TNG may have worked for the 80s - but it does not hold up well in 2010. (DS9 actually ages okay. Not perfectly, but okay. VOY really ages badly, and ENT is too new to really age.)

5. Trek may be good TV. However, it's given far too much credence as provoking anything else - whether that be in attitudes, or technology, or whatever.