We'll have to agree to disagree then, I thought the use of TOS assets in those episodes looked absolutely horrid and felt completely off.
Unpopular Trek opinions game
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
We'll have to agree to disagree then, I thought the use of TOS assets in those episodes looked absolutely horrid and felt completely off.
Star Trek was slow to catch up. It is what happens when something becomes a franchise, the owner protects potential profitability above all else.
Probably because that episode didn't handle things very well. TNG was OK at the allegory some times, and there were times were it dropped the ball. I think "The Outcast" dropped the ball.
I didn’t make those decisions, the powers that be did.
That's one way of putting it.
Everyone was new here once.
I agree with this. The rest? You’re crazy.
I blame the Okudas - things like the chronology and encyclopaedia in the golden age of the 90s really helped fans build this idea of a single integrated world.
Yeah, I get this a lot when I voice my unpopular TNG opinions. I'm used to it by now.
I'm basically a walking unpopular TNG opinion.
- The first two seasons are my favorites - 2 is my fave, 1 is my second fave.
- I prefer episodes like "Lonely Among Us" over stuff like "The Inner Light".
- I like Dr. Pulaski so much that she's one of the major reasons why TNG's season 2 is my favorite.
- I'm not much of a Data fan. He's okay. I don't dislike him, but I also don't get the hype around him.
- I like "Masks". A lot. In fact, so much that it's among my top three episodes. What can I say, I like weird episodes.
I guess I'd better stop now before I get dragged off this stage.
Ironic, since "Masks" is essentially a Data episode that you say you don't like.
I'm basically a walking unpopular TNG opinion.
- The first two seasons are my favorites - 2 is my fave, 1 is my second fave.
- I prefer episodes like "Lonely Among Us" over stuff like "The Inner Light".
- I like Dr. Pulaski so much that she's one of the major reasons why TNG's season 2 is my favorite.
- I'm not much of a Data fan. He's okay. I don't dislike him, but I also don't get the hype around him.
- I like "Masks". A lot. In fact, so much that it's among my top three episodes. What can I say, I like weird episodes.
I guess I'd better stop now before I get dragged off this stage.
-I like S1 and S2 way more than most people....but they aren't my favorites. I like 3 and 4 a bit better. But 1 and 2 had some great charm and uniqueness that went away quickly with the later seasons.
-Oh...yikes....I can't agree with this.
-I like Pulaski too.
-Totally agree that Data is over-rated. I dislike most of the Data-centric episodes
-I loved Masks!
Yes
Yes
No. You and I don't get to say what is "canon," thankfully. If it's on-screen, it's official and it ain't going away. Regardless of whether we like it or not.
Yes
No
Bingo. This was never intended to be a unified-universe franchise. And it sure as hell was never designed to "hold together" as well as it does. I think the fact that Trek was produced and designed by basically the same people across the TNG era (1987-2004, which encompasses 4 series and 4 motion pictures) adds to the illusion that this is all supposed to be extremely interconnected and continuous.
Last edited:
Yeah, and that illusion continues with the aid of nostalgia goggles.
I predict there will be as many people who are upset / disappointed / chagrined / generally displeased with the visual, character and story developments Picard brings to the franchise that differ from the TNG era blueprint, as there were people who lost their minds over DSC's differences from TOS.
Should be fun!
There were? In March of 1992? Will & Grace would not air for several years, and Tony Randall's character in Love, Sidney was far more closeted in the series than it was in the original movie-of-the-week pilot, so completely closeted that his sexual orientation almost never came up. And of course, "Jack Tripper" in Three's Company was only pretending to be gay, to get past a landlord who hated sex, and all for the sake of a lot of bad-taste humor in a sitcom that was laden enough with pure drivel to be a monument to Kitman's Law. (Having seen him in The Dreamer of Oz, I would unequivocally assert that the late John Ritter was utterly wasted in the role of Jack Tripper, even if it did make him a lot of money.)
People tend to forget how far we've come in so little time. People today regard "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the U.S. Armed Forces as a barbaric, discriminatory policy, when in fact it was a "baby-steps" compromise in an era when all a military officer had to do was insinuate that some unwanted subordinate was gay, and unless the target had incontrovertible proof to the contrary (e.g., a wife and seven kids), the best he could hope for was a general discharge. Could Clinton have gone further? Absolutely. He could have gone much further, had he not been goaded into doing too much, too fast, too soon, and doing it before he'd accumulated enough political capital to do anything.
Agreed, I still like the way DS9 treated it best, in Trials and Tribble-ations where Odo picks up on it when seeing 23rd century Klingons, only to be told by Worf: we do NOT discuss it with outsiders. Basically saying to the audience (at least that's how I interpreted it): 'yes, they look differently now, we're not going to give you a convoluted "in-universe" reason for this, this is just a show. Simply enjoy it for what it is and live with it.'
Last edited:
But Bashir said something about a possible mutation, opening the door for an explanation like we got in Ent fourth season.
Wouldn't be too surprised (though I cannot prove it) if there were already fan debates & theories about this going on at the time (on internet or other media) and the producers had picked up on that. I could see Bashir as a stand-in for the fans, and Worf as a stand-in for the producers.
Last edited:
There definitely were, and have been since the new Klingons debuted in TMP. But the ENT episodes (and to a lesser extent Bashir's comments) inflated the importance of the changes and gave credence to a minority of vocal fans. I can't swing a dead tribble in most fan spaces now without hitting 10 people who are angry that DSC changed the Klingon look again because of "continuity".
It's okay to just not like the way the Klingons look now, there's no need to qualify it.
I found the episodes entertaining, so while the explanation isn't my favorite thing, I tend to give it a pass.
And it's equally OK to like them with requiring an explanation.
There were conflicting "fanon" and off-screen speculations and explanations for the Klingon change practically the instant they appeared in TMP. Roddenberry and co. tried to handwave away the difference and say something along the lines of "Just imagine that they always looked that way."
Around that time, the "Best of Trek" fanzines/books published an article by Leslie Thompson which decried the wholesale change to the entire Klingon species as "change for the sake of change" and "an affront to Star Trek fans." Thompson also described several different fan hypotheses including self-mutilation, the existence of different races/subsecies within the Klingon Empire, some weird communications technology that fit on their heads and had been developed after we last saw them in the series, and of course the classic joke of the Klingons getting their rear ends kicked by the Federation so much that it pushed their spinal columns up over the fronts of their foreheads. Thompson's specific idea was that the TMP Klingons were a small minority subspecies of "berserkers" who developed on the Klingon home world and were used as shock troops.
Then came the John M. Ford explanation in his novels, and in the FASA role-playing game, that the ridgy Klingons were pure Klingons, described as "Imperial Klingons," and the smooth-headed ones were Klingon-human hybrids that the Empire had bred to deal with the Federation; there were also Romulan-Klingon hybrids for dealing with the Romulans, etc.
Kor
Last edited:
Similar threads
