What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[BillJ]

Vaal was right.

I think it was more Vaal was stupid. Kirk tried to leave, Vaal blocked his exit then started fucking with the Enterprise.

 

[marlboro]

I really hate the "It's Star Trek if corporate bigwigs say it is." argument.

I get what they mean, but it's it's such a specious argument. It's like saying margarine is really butter if the Country Crock commercial says it is.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I really hate the "It's Star Trek if corporate bigwigs say it is." argument.

I get what they mean, but it's it's such a specious argument. It's like saying margarine is really butter if the Country Crock commercial says it is.

Not sure that's an apt analogy.

 

[fireproof78]

I really hate the "It's Star Trek if corporate bigwigs say it is." argument.

I get what they mean, but it's it's such a specious argument. It's like saying margarine is really butter if the Country Crock commercial says it is.

That analogy is not quite on point.

 

[FredH]

I think it was more Vaal was stupid. Kirk tried to leave, Vaal blocked his exit then started fucking with the Enterprise.

An outside civilization might interfere with the peaceful, happy life Vaal was maintaining for the natives (via conquest, exploitation, or plain old influence); and if Vaal was remotely monitoring Kirk and co (which seems a reasonable assumption), then it knew that Kirk had outright said that they couldnt let these people keep "stagnating" like this. So to fulfill its apparent function of protecting these people, it had to prevent the Enterprise from leaving, and kill the crew if they wouldn't let the culture stay as it was. Vaal failed, but it couldn't have done anything else.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

An outside civilization might interfere with the peaceful, happy life Vaal was maintaining for the natives (via conquest, exploitation, or plain old influence); and if Vaal was remotely monitoring Kirk and co (which seems a reasonable assumption), then it knew that Kirk had outright said that they couldnt let these people keep "stagnating" like this. So to fulfill its apparent function of protecting these people, it had to prevent the Enterprise from leaving, and kill the crew if they wouldn't let the culture stay as it was. Vaal failed, but it couldn't have done anything else.

Fact check: Kirk decided that the natives were stagnating under Vaal's rule only after Vaal had threatened the Enterprise.

 

[FredH]

Fact check: Kirk decided that the natives were stagnating under Vaal's rule only after Vaal had threatened the Enterprise.

Fair enough. Vaal still has the same reason to do it though — if interstellar outsiders become aware of the place, they could threaten or overturn it. Whatever precursor civilization set Vaal up seems to have done it to maintain it in perpetual stability as well as protect it, like a more proactively aggressive version of the Preserver obelisk.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Vaal still has the same reason to do it though — if interstellar outsiders become aware of the place, they could threaten or overturn it. Whatever precursor civilization set Vaal up seems to have done it to maintain it in perpetual stability as well as protect it, like a more proactively aggressive version of the Preserver obelisk.

I basically agree, with one reservation and/or caveat.

Vaal was not self-sustaining. If the aliens who created Vaal had wished the people of Vaal to serve Vaal indefinitely and unconditionally, why didn't they provide a more automatic means of feeding exploding rocks to Vaal? What I mean is, the people seemed to have been given the means of breaking free of Vaal: stop feeding Vaal, or in terms more analogous to the Book of Genesis: disobey Vaal.

I have to wonder whether the existence of that "out" was a part of the overall plan.

 

[NCC-73515]

Oh, well, and this may or may not be a controversial opinion: A lot of what's done on Star Trek violates simple logic and physics.

When it comes to FTL, there's no such thing as actual physics, because FTL is pure science fiction,*/** especially the way it's handled on Star Trek. Neither FTL travel, FTL communication, nor FTL scanning occurs in real life, yet all three exist on Star Trek, and they are presented as routine for all FTL capable-species.

But if you want to appeal to simple logic, at the start of "The Battle" no defense to the Picard Maneuver was known, and yet Federation FTL capable ships must have FTL scanning. We've seen the NCC-1701 of all letters scan at FTL. Data figured out something to scan for, and that's how the Picard Maneuver was defeated. So, without knowing what to scan for, it would have worked, even with FTL scanning.

Now, we don't know much of anything about the Ferengi vessel, but it's pretty absurd to imagine that it would not be FTL capable, given all of the circumstances. If it were FTL capable, then it would pretty much have to have FTL scanning, or else it would not be able to avoid anything that was not on its maps. So, the simplest explanation, the one in fact presented in the story, is that they were just caught by surprise by the Picard Maneuver.

Full disclosure: My reaction to the Picard Maneuver was basically that it wasn't how FTL ought to work, because seeing things in two different places is the kind of thing that would have to be overcome just to get FTL scanning to work. They had FTL scanning, we've known that. So, this is just another iteration of the writers not really understanding how things ought to work with their fantasy technology. This is another instance of self-contradictions, as another poster pointed out earlier today. Be that as it may, the writers had the characters say what they said, and here we are.

* - The Alcubierre drive theory was not published until after TNG was written (with the possible exception of the last few episodes), and in any case it hasn't influenced the development of Star Trek's fantasy tech. It hasn't led to any practical FTL, and it has yet to be demonstrated that it ever will.

** - When it comes to actual physics, including the slower-than-light stuff, Star Trek gets it wrong many, many times.

again: it was about surprising the enemy, which still works with ftl sensors, and which was counteracted by data. ftl sensors would not be fooled however by seeing two ships, they would only see the real position.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

ftl sensors would not be fooled however by seeing two ships, they would only see the real position.

Again, that's contradicted by the episode, because if it were so then Data would not have said that there was no known defense before he invented one.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You're welcome to your controversial opinion.

 

[Tenacity]

Fact check: Kirk decided that the natives were stagnating under Vaal's rule only after Vaal had threatened the Enterprise.

Okay, but would Kirk have come to the same conclusion at the same time if the Enterprise were not being threatened?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Okay, but would Kirk have come to the same conclusion at the same time if the Enterprise were not being threatened?

In "The Return of the Archons," Kirk argued similarly, but the ship was also threatened with destruction. I'm not sure we ever saw Kirk make a comparable decision when there was no peril to the ship.

 

[Amasov]

Another one for me is I think Deep Space Nine is overrated. Not saying it isn't good, but, I've never bought into it being the pinnacle of Star Trek on television simply because it did what the other shows didn't (or couldn't) do. I've often asked why fans love the show so much -- particularly when the war starts -- and I almost always get the same answer; they love the action. When those same fans use that reason for loving DS9 as a reason to hate Discovery.

 

[BillJ]

The original Star Trek still runs dramatic rings around everything that came after it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The original Star Trek still runs dramatic rings around everything that came after it.

And it's comedic rings are better, too.

 

[fireproof78]

The original Star Trek still runs dramatic rings around everything that came after it.

And it will never be replaced.

 

[Imaus]

"1966-2005 Only" is the new "TOS Only".

I remember when it was just 1966-2001 or bust... And even before that people hated VOY, too, then DS9...though I only caught a whiff of all that in the 00s as I first got on computers, didn't even know how to sign up on forums... Remember when people actually tried to weigh Picard vs Sisko or Picard vs Kirk?

 

[Nyotarules]

And it will never be replaced.

Thank God, we don't need another Spock's brain or Turnaournd intruder lol

 

[Lord Garth]

Another one for me is I think Deep Space Nine is overrated. Not saying it isn't good, but, I've never bought into it being the pinnacle of Star Trek on television simply because it did what the other shows didn't (or couldn't) do. I've often asked why fans love the show so much -- particularly when the war starts -- and I almost always get the same answer; they love the action. When those same fans use that reason for loving DS9 as a reason to hate Discovery.

This. 1,000 times this. If DSC came out in the early-'00s, Niners would've loved it.

 

[AresB]

This. 1,000 times this. If DSC came out in the early-'00s, Niners would've loved it.

We still do.