Oh, absolutely. I'll take the 2009 film and BEYOND over GENERATIONS, INSURRECTION, and NEMESIS any day, although FIRST CONTACT probably wins out over INTO DARKNESS.
Unpopular Trek opinions game
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
Oh, absolutely. I'll take the 2009 film and BEYOND over GENERATIONS, INSURRECTION, and NEMESIS any day, although FIRST CONTACT probably wins out over INTO DARKNESS.
Blame the bad holonovelist
Into Darkness is a fine movie with a relevant topical discussion, slightly let down by the ending and pacing issues (way too fast).
While cool, the move in DS9 and later series to have giant fleets of ships was ultimately counter productive. I think Trek would be better suited to battles as seen in Balance of Terror or Yesterday's Enterprise, closer to BSG.
While cool, the move in DS9 and later series to have giant fleets of ships was ultimately counter productive. I think Trek would be better suited to battles as seen in Balance of Terror or Yesterday's Enterprise, closer to BSG.
Agree. Balance of Terror, Wrath of Khan, and even Elaan of Troyus are great examples of well-executed Trek space battles. Far more interesting than cgi smeared all over the screen.
Well, there is one objection: Given the size of the big nasty starship and the fact that it was advanced technology, Enterprise should have been blown to bits in a matter of seconds. I mean talk about heavy fire!!!
Unpopular opinion: The Kelvin films, like many action genre films since the late 1990s, are ruined by obtrusive CGI, insane editing, and unreal action scenes. They are simply not on the level of reality as films used to be. They are disposable, fun to watch in the theater, then best forgotten.
In my opinion, this describes the majority of what passes for big blockbuster releases these days.
I agree with this, and like you say, I find this issue with most modern action films. I had to turn Guardians of the Galaxy off after about 15 minutes because it started with a huge action sequence where things were flying around so rapidly I could not see any of what was actually going on, they had not introduced any character development thus far so I had no clue who the good guys or bad guys were, and the whole thing was a sensory overload. At first I tried to follow what was happening, but at some point I said, "why should I care about this?" and just walked away. I don't think the Kelvin films are quite that bad, but their action sequences suffer from the same chaotic CGI mess.
Unpopular opinion:
Voyager is actually the best Trek series. Hear me out. I’m going to use a comparison to TNG because TNG seems to be considered best by many (not all, of course). I think that Voyager represents a slightly better version of TNG. We have an interesting premise, a strong captain, and some great characters. Now, you can argue that Voyager had some missteps, such as the useless Harry Kim, but what Trek series doesn’t? They all have some character or another that is poorly developed, they all rely heavily on technobabble to explain things away, and they all have some stinker episodes. Voyager does suffer from the same flaws that seem to plague all Trek series.
However, what allows Voyager to stand above the others is that it doesn’t take itself so seriously. It’s flaws are more easily forgiven because it never claimed to be perfect in the first place. When TNG has poor episodes the impact is more strongly felt, perhaps because TNG is held up as this idealistic representation of future society, delving into serious considerations of philosophy and politics. When it falters, it feels disappointing and a bit embarrassing. When Voyager falters, it feels like more like they were trying something new and maybe a bit silly and it just didn’t work out this time. I can appreciate the willingness by the writers to take Trek into more humorous, light-hearted territory, and I think that Kate Mulgrew played this perfectly (as we can also see in her portrayal of Red in Orange is the New Black; she balances drama and comedy really well).
DS9, Enterprise, and Discovery are great in their own ways, but also suffer from taking themselves a bit too seriously. TOS is almost in a category of its own, so I find it hard to compare against the more recent series', but it has other flaws that push it lower on the list than Voyager. I also noticed, while doing a whole watch of Voyager recently, that the highs are really high. By that I mean, the good episodes stand out as really good, some of the best Trek ever. I think people focus too much on the lows, and don’t give the series the credit it deserves.
The term "blockbuster" only means that they bring a lot of money not that they are good.
Cannot agree on the best forgotten point. Other than that, I can certainly see the points made.
Reality is often the furthest thing from their minds. Like when Riker gets a big bleeding scratch (from Deanna) across his face and not one hair of his beard is out of place! I mean, please, could you at least try?
As I remember, in WWII a "blockbuster" was a very large and powerful conventional bomb, allegedly able to demolish all the buildings in an entire city block.
So calling a successful movie a "blockbuster" implies that it is really big and extreme. But anyone who remembers "blockbuster" bombs may believe that calling a film a "blockbuster" can be calling it a "bomb", and thus a commercial or artistic failure.
Last edited:
Precisely.
You are right about one thing: this IS an extremely unpopular opinion!
Generally agreed. I go back and forth between TNG and VOY, but there's just something about VOY I have always loved.
Unpopular Opinion: I don't care where the engine room is on the Enterprise.
Generally agreed. I go back and forth between TNG and VOY, but there's just something about VOY I have always loved.
Unpopular Opinion: I don't care where the engine room is on the Enterprise.
I didn't know it was an issue.
Disagree, but only by a hair. I relative terms, I generally go:
1. FC
2. NEM
3. GEN
4. INS
Yeah, "Insurrection" feels like an extended episode.
Similar threads
