Personally, TOS will always stand apart for me, both from the TOS films as well as the rest of Trek because it was by and large its own thing.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Yeah that's funny. My friends know I used to gripe about TNG by the fifth season for falling into the trap of that A/B formula. "Data's cat" is still a shorthand catchphrase for us in discussing the different eras and styles of Trek (TOS, Berman and modern).
Was having this discussion on another message board. I think both Picard and/or Discovery (especially) would have been much better shows if they had full 20-something episode seasons and had taken the place of the MacGyver and/or Magnum P.I reboots on CBS prime instead of being stuck on AA.
the only real downside I can see is that it would have shrunk the budgets. But DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all managed.
the only real downside I can see is that it would have shrunk the budgets. But DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all managed.
Would have had access to a larger audience to be sure. But what would CBS have used as one of it's AA hooks in it's place?
Simply not the current trend. They were successful with Discovery so sticking there made sense.
The Picard Maneuver shouldn't exist as it does in Star Trek.
It probably would had been invented as a showy trick by some flyboy in 2080s Earth if not earlier, used in the Kzin Wars, and had been a classic textbook move. To say nothing of the Romulans, Klingons, and others using it and using it liberally whenever they could as it seems weapon ranges in trek are very, very small which isn't a problem by itself per se. It would be up there with Alpha Patterns and whatnot. Its whole existence is intrinstic to the nature and exploitation of FTL travel and FTL travel in trek is VERY forgiving, if slow. You can warp nearly anywhere at any time as long as you have a powered warp drive with enough fuel to keep it going. It is not mirred by gravity, doesn't have any noticeable cooldowns, or any other limitation besides you need the powerplant and warp coils or whatever to warp space around you.
It just feels like the TNG writers realized they could do this and had to shove it in as an episode but it doesn't make sense for Picard to be the namesake for it in the 24th century, it shouldn't be some 'save our skin' maneuver, it is literally going faster than light to exploit the ability to go faster than light, and it shouldn't take a rather competent officer nearly three hundred years after the discovery of FTL to bring it into being.
This is why you need to delineate your FTL systems and just have a day or two to write out the implications of your FTL system. Do you go to a different dimension? Do you fold a warp bubble? Do you use the alignment of stars to be catapulted across interstellar space? Psychic women that are one in ten billion, meaning if you want a big fleet you need to have quadrillions of people around? Do you go to hell and back? Do you suddenly just jump to your destination? Do you have to set up wormholes which may be gigantic or small but have to be pulled across by STL craft? What are the ramifications, applications, exploitation, and so on? Can you communicate or track, or be tracked or communicated with? What are the limitations? Does gravity affect the FTL system? etc, etc.
It probably would had been invented as a showy trick by some flyboy in 2080s Earth if not earlier, used in the Kzin Wars, and had been a classic textbook move. To say nothing of the Romulans, Klingons, and others using it and using it liberally whenever they could as it seems weapon ranges in trek are very, very small which isn't a problem by itself per se. It would be up there with Alpha Patterns and whatnot. Its whole existence is intrinstic to the nature and exploitation of FTL travel and FTL travel in trek is VERY forgiving, if slow. You can warp nearly anywhere at any time as long as you have a powered warp drive with enough fuel to keep it going. It is not mirred by gravity, doesn't have any noticeable cooldowns, or any other limitation besides you need the powerplant and warp coils or whatever to warp space around you.
It just feels like the TNG writers realized they could do this and had to shove it in as an episode but it doesn't make sense for Picard to be the namesake for it in the 24th century, it shouldn't be some 'save our skin' maneuver, it is literally going faster than light to exploit the ability to go faster than light, and it shouldn't take a rather competent officer nearly three hundred years after the discovery of FTL to bring it into being.
This is why you need to delineate your FTL systems and just have a day or two to write out the implications of your FTL system. Do you go to a different dimension? Do you fold a warp bubble? Do you use the alignment of stars to be catapulted across interstellar space? Psychic women that are one in ten billion, meaning if you want a big fleet you need to have quadrillions of people around? Do you go to hell and back? Do you suddenly just jump to your destination? Do you have to set up wormholes which may be gigantic or small but have to be pulled across by STL craft? What are the ramifications, applications, exploitation, and so on? Can you communicate or track, or be tracked or communicated with? What are the limitations? Does gravity affect the FTL system? etc, etc.
Last edited:
I don't believe so, but, I seem to recall in Dark Frontier during one of the Hanson flashbacks, they bring a Borg onto their ship and refer to it as three of five; Hugh's designation was "Third of five." I don't know if it's just a coincidence or if that was supposed to be him. Conversely, in that same episode, the Queen says Seven was the first drone to regain her humanity; basically ignoring Hugh.
I think your controversial opinion beat out mine.
You're forgetting the only essential thing: It depends on the enemy not having FTL sensors. That probably doesn't happen a lot, which is why Picard could invent it at the time.
It can't be him cause he's not Ktarian. He regained his individuality, but had not regained his humanity (if he even is human) as much as Seven had. And if Hugh was 'born' Borg and had no humanity before his assimilation, he can't regain it anyway XD
Earlier more "primative" warp drives might have been incapable of making such a short distance movement.
It's not for everyone, but IDIC
That's quite possible. Using the warp engine for a short-distance tactical maneuver probably would require a very high degree of control of both the exact amount of "warpage" of space and the exact moment it has to occur (down to the millisecond, if possible), and a long evolution of warp engines might have been required before this amount of control was achieved.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the long-standing doctrine of preferably not going into warp within a solar system was also partly due to the inaccuracy of early warp engines (and this does not necessarily conflict with other explanations such as the presence of gravity wells disturbing the warping process , etc.).
Here's a controversial opinion. So controversial that I haven't even posted about it in here yet. Nope. Not about Georgiou, who I'm a fan of. Nope. Not that. Here it is. Are you ready?
I don't have a problem with Wesley Crusher.
I don't have a problem with Wesley Crusher.
I would've been pleased if Picard did the maneuver against Shinzon in Nemesis; he wouldn't had seen that coming, and neither would the audience. A definite crowd pleaser.
ConTROverSIAL!
I love almost everything about DS9. But each to their own.
I don’t know if my opinions are hugely controversial, mind you. I find mid-season 4 onward of TNG a real slog to get through, I don’t feel that show has aged very well.
I genuinely don’t know why any of the main characters on Enterprise were deemed interesting or compelling enough to drive the series. They just feel so bland, weak and aimless to me. I genuinely liked Scott Bakula before he was cast in Enterprise, but found Archer infuriatingly unlikeable.
Voyager barely registers on my sensors. There never felt like there any was anything about that series to sink my teeth into. It was a kind of a Trek void for me — it had all the right ingredients, but nothing seemed to coalesce into anything substantial, in terms of either character or storyline. I still think it has perhaps the greatest setup and potential of any Star Trek show, yet so sadly squandered.
That’s about the worst I can do controversy wise.
Last edited:
I meant more the general homophobia and sexism that was prevalent in society when TOS was made and that played it's part in how the series and its characters were created and presented (the manly men, the swooning, vain women, the hetero-normative coupling.) I didn't mean to single out TOS on its homophobia.
Focusing more on the SciFi is not necessarily a bad thing, truth be told. Except for DS9 a lot of those plots always seemed kinda tacked on. And sometimes it was to the detriment of the scifi plot.
Like that Enterprise episode where they were on a Rouge Planet....and the Episode was about everything else except that incredibly itnerestig (sincere here) Rouge Planet. Or the episode in TNG were they found a freaking Dyson Sphere...and instead the episode was about Scotty struggling to fit into the 24th century...
If we can have an episode that is actually about the exploration of a Rouge Planet or a Dyson Sphere (or insert equally interesting scifi phenomena in here) , I won't complain.
Though I do hope there will be some character episodes.
See when somebody says "it will be like TOS/the First Season of TNG" then I'm getting horror visions about a show that has episodes like the Cage, Mudd's Women, A Piece of the Action, Justice or Angel One. That is the stuff I want them to avoid in SNW. Stuff like the Enterprise Incident, Balance of Terror or something, yeah sure, bring that stuff.
On the conflict part. I mean, first I hope there will be more characters than just Pike, Number One and Spock, but even if people are on the same page, there can be conflict between them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
