What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I don't have any issues with recasting actors and redesigning sets. I like the redesigned Enterprise bridge in DSC, for example. I just dislike when they drastically change history, character personalities and the previously established technological levels (and limitations). Creative writers should be able to write good stories within those boundaries. 
And there's no crying in Starfleet.
And there's no crying in Starfleet.
We didn't need Sarek, Mudd, nor Michael being Spock's sister. The links to TOS only served as.. fanservice. We like them, sure, but they weren't necessary. We could have had just as excellent stories without the leaning on TOS characters or relationships to said characters.
The only thing I really dislike is the second exit behind the viewscreen. It's a great idea, don't get me wrong, it just ruins all those previous episodes set in the future where the bridge crew was trapped on the bridge. I'd rather it have been there from the beginning, because it's a great feature.
My only other complaint is that it's just a little too dark. The walls are just a little too dark color. Other than that, it's a great modern interpretation and I support it 100%
Last edited:
Just like you can't make the sets and costumes look like from the 1960, you also can't make the characters behave like they were written in the 1960s. Society has changed since then.
But it's not a history. It's a dramatic presentation. Treating Star Trek like rigid history is asking for disappointment, especially since it always reinterprets technological understanding based upon contemporary understanding.I don't have any issues with recasting actors and redesigning sets. I like the redesigned Enterprise bridge in DSC, for example. I just dislike when they drastically change history, character personalities and the previously established technological levels (and limitations). Creative writers should be able to write good stories within those boundaries.
And there's no crying in Starfleet.
Other than Spock having a previously unknown foster-sister, I don't see much change. They had to make Pike not be a sexist because "I just can't get used to having a woman on the bridge" would never fly Today.I don't have any issues with recasting actors and redesigning sets. I like the redesigned Enterprise bridge in DSC, for example. I just dislike when they drastically change history, character personalities and the previously established technological levels (and limitations). Creative writers should be able to write good stories within those boundaries.
The Spore Drive was experimental, but they said it was experimental and couldn't be duplicated. Then they classified everything about it under the penalty of Treason. Not the extreme that I would've gone to, but Canonistas demanded no less.
Spock might as well have said, "I recommend we should make any reference to Discovery, the Spore Drive, and Michael Burnham punishable under the penalty of Treason because... STD Sucks." The Admiral asks, "That is your official recommendation, Lieutenant?" Spock replies with, "It is completely logical, Admiral." That's basically the way that scene played to me... And the one thing I don't like about "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II".
Kirk. TWOK and TSFS.And there's no crying in Starfleet.
EDITED TO ADD: There are a couple of things I picked up...
Like there not being much contact between the Federation and the Klingons for 100 years (basically since the time of ENT), which sharply contradicts TUC. "An end to almost 70 years of unremitting hostility."
And when they reference Starfleet having 6,000 ships (I can't remember the episode), where I thought "No. If they did, then how come we've never seen ships from the 23rd Century with registry numbers passed the 2000s?"
But those aren't the types of things that would make or break a series for me.
Last edited:
Actually those were my favourite parts. And enough people's that they're making Strange New Worlds.
If you have all new everything, why bother making it Star Trek in the first place?
Graphics and tech, sure that’s a given considering EVERYTHING in Discovery screams post-Nemisis in that regard.
but when it comes to tying the new characters (or Burnham specifically) to existing characters you easily could have tied them to 24th/25th century equivalents. Or just ignore ties to existing characters to begin with.
Maybe instead of being Spock’s adopted sister. Maybe Michael Burnham is Michael Yates a Starfleet officer always trying to get out from under her missing Fathers (Ben Sisko) shadow. While dealing with her estranged half brother Jake.
instead of Captain Pike, it’s Captain LaForge, Captain Worf, Captain Dax or even Captain Harry Kim.
instead of Harry Mudd, you could use Quark or another Ferengi like Brunt.
even having the Klingons as a bad guy fits better given the potential of a land rush over the end of the Romulan Empire and the Klingons still rebuilding from the Dominion War.
I think they just went prequel so they could eventually use Spock and the Enterprise.
They should at least give Zachary Quinto the type of make up, wiht like bushier eyebrows and such, used in the Cage.
DSC was thought up in late-2015 and 2016 when the Kelvin Films were still going strong and the TNG Era was still thought of as toxic. That was the context and environment DSC was created in. Paramount had the Kelvin Timeline. CBS had the Prime Timeline. That's how we got DSC in the TOS Era.
It's only been very recently that things have started to warm up towards the TNG Era again.
since theyre going with the Spock look from NuTrek, they should make it take place in the Kelvin timeline
Discovery doesn't actually say there's been no contact for 100 years, it says the Klingons refused to speak to almost anyone for 100 years. Raids happened throughout that time, like the one that killed Michael's parents. They just happened without the Klingons deigning to open hailing frequencies at all and without ever escalating into a full scale war until DSC season 1.
That's why I said "not being much".
Well, like I said, the Kelvin Timeline was Paramount's. The Prime Timeline was CBS's. CBS didn't want their Star Trek series set in the competition's timeline.
Plus I like the DSC Enterprise a Hell of a lot better than the Kelvin Enterprise. So, no, I like it where they set it.
Kelvin enterprise looks more like a work off art than a functional ship. Since in the Kelvin timeline its bigger than the prime Enteprise D, I wonder how big the Kelvin enteprise D is?
I just hope SNW has Spocko in it.
Not sure who that is/where that's from, but it better have Welshy as well!
Spocko is from a SNL sketch from a few years back, no offense but the SNL sketch wasn't particularly high quality. Spocko was Spock's mehcanic/technician brother who was kinda (extremely) weird.
There's no need for that. Especially since the take on Pike is a bit different than in the Kelvin films. Spock works just fine.
Neither of those sets were exact copies of the TOS Bridge. The one from ENT in particular did various updates to the set design on both the bridge and corridor set.
They can have as many Spocks as they have Superman or Batman in TV and movies, and they can all be just as different. I don't get this Trekkie need to homogenise everything. I guess it's the fault of all the technical books.
Similar threads
- Locked
