And Kirk lost almost as many blueshirts in the Sciences department as he did redshirts.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Perhaps they have to sign a form when transferred to the Enterprise.
"By signing this form, Employee declares that he understands and accepts the risk of his death when in our service, and that aforementioned death may not be a peaceful one. (footnote: However, our social benefit program does include an appropriately dramatic musical accompaniment in such an eventuality at the moment of death.)"
All the other Constitution class ships we see suffer massive losses. The Enterprise actually comes out OK when compared with ships like the Intrepid or the Constellation losing all hands.
And the M5 computer kills over 400 crewmembers on four other Constitution-class starships.
Yup. I was glad Commodore Wesley made it though.
And people wonder why the Federation doesn't trust AI.
Between Control in 2258 and the M5 disaster in 2268 it's a wonder Starfleet didn't ban advanced AI altogether.
The most controversial opinion of them all: It's just a TV show. 
Next you'll tell me to relax!The most controversial opinion of them all: It's just a TV show.
Say it ain't so!The most controversial opinion of them all: It's just a TV show.
Gene Roddenberry was brighter and more creative than Rick Berman or Brannon Braga but a far worse steward of the franchise.
It's ok to not agree with some of the principles of Star Trek (Socialism and no money in the federation) but still enjoy the franchise. It's not an all or nothing thing, and that's the problem with our tendency to label things and people these days.
I can't argue with this.
Gene Roddenberry threw in the towel after just two seasons of TOS. The grind was getting to him and NBC moving Star Trek to Friday Nights at 10:00 was the perfect excuse for him to get out because he could hide behind saying he saw the writing on the wall. The drama behind-the-scenes with TMP is well-known. And even if Gene Roddenberry's health declined in the late-'80s, Maurice Hurley only became showrunner toward the end of TNG S1 because the situation behind-the-scenes was spiraling out of control under Gene Roddenberry and his lawyer.
Rick Berman, OTOH, just made creative choices that not everyone agrees with (including me) and stuck around too long. But he was able to keep Star Trek going.
They both had what the other was missing.
Roddenberry was a great ideas man. Berman a great office guy who kept the engines running.
Considering that he wasn't even knowledgeable enough to realize that you're supposed to promote an ensign, it's amazing that Trek was as good as it was.
Rick Berman had showrunners underneath him who could do great work. Michael Piller for one, Ira Steven Behr for another. Similar to how Alex Kurtzman had Michael Chabon for PIC S1 and has Michelle Paradise for DSC S3 (not going to go into DSC S3 spoilers, but I will say I think Michelle Paradise is the best showrunner for DSC yet).
When it comes to Harry Kim... I'm now convinced they were just being an asshole to Garrett Wang. There's a story there we're not being told about.
Similar threads
- Locked
