What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[JesterFace]

About cloaking devices.
The treaty with the Romulans that prevents Federation using cloaking technology is a good explanation. From a TV series point of view it might get boring if our hero ship just flies around and no one detects it. It would be too "easy to explore the galaxy" and where would stories come from then?
I think the Romulan threaty explanation is a good one and Federation must have gotten something out of it, perhaps something more useful than cloaking technology. It just hasn't been mentioned on screen.

 

[Swedish Borg]

I hate technobabble, most of the time if not all the time, it's just a waste of syllables and it's totally useless. Just pretend that you did that stuff off-screen.. Seriously who would miss it? Most of the time when it tries to make sense it says something completely stupid that betrays the ignorance of the writers more than anything else.

 

[Swedish Borg]

About cloaking devices.
The treaty with the Romulans that prevents Federation using cloaking technology is a good explanation. From a TV series point of view it might get boring if our hero ship just flies around and no one detects it. It would be too "easy to explore the galaxy" and where would stories come from then?
I think the Romulan threaty explanation is a good one and Federation must have gotten something out of it, perhaps something more useful than cloaking technology. It just hasn't been mentioned on screen.

I don't know. I'd prefer drama based on something natural that makes sense to one created by artificial conditions that seem only to exist to provoke that drama. Even if people have cloaks, they still need to drop it if they want to fight and the cloak can fail at a bad time...etc... But saying like Picard, we don't want to use the cloak because... and at the same time finding it normal that the sneaky underhanded Romulans have one is just insane. Just like when Picard says "we can't save these people because of inept dogma, so we'll just watch them die!!" That just makes my skin crawl!!!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I disagree on TNG. I'd say maybe 1/3 were "good." The rest were average or dreadfully boring.

DS9 is interesting. I find the first two seasons have about 4-6 good episodes each. Pretty dreadful. But then, the mid and later seasons I'd say it's closer to the 7-out-of-10 that you mention.

I’d say from seasons 3-6, TNG had that ratio.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

I would put the ratio of good episodes for TNG and DS9 more at 7 out of 10.

All of the first two seasons of TOS are good outside of 2 or 3 episodes in each season. Like 90% of TNG is good or at least solid once you get past the first year.

There are some people on a Star Trek forum who actually like Star Trek, who would have thought?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I hate technobabble, most of the time if not all the time, it's just a waste of syllables and it's totally useless. Just pretend that you did that stuff off-screen.. Seriously who would miss it? Most of the time when it tries to make sense it says something completely stupid that betrays the ignorance of the writers more than anything else.

I see technobabble as a factor of immersivity, so long as it’s only used for decoration to make the characters look smart and not used as the driver of story.

I’m not saying they should run around with cloaks all the time. Just when in a serious combat situation. Or they at the very least need a more compelling reason we can’t use them besides “We decided to give our arch enemies a major tactical advantage if they pinky promised not to use it to kill us”.

Like, maybe long term exposure to cloaks is really bad for you and Romulans don’t care but we do so we can only use it sparingly. There’s a million possible better reasons.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

I’d say from seasons 3-6, TNG had that ratio.

TNG from seasons 3-6 was pretty damn close to perfect. 2 and 7 were good but had some duds.

 

[Swedish Borg]

...
Like, maybe long term exposure to cloaks is really bad for you and Romulans don’t care but we do so we can only use it sparingly. There’s a million possible better reasons.

Exactly, they can find many reasonable reasons for not being able to use the cloak at some point, there's no need to concoct stupid ones.

 

[fireproof78]

Not using a cloak based on principles isn't stupid.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They've gotten over it by the time of Disco S3.

 

[at Quark's]

I hate technobabble, most of the time if not all the time, it's just a waste of syllables and it's totally useless. Just pretend that you did that stuff off-screen.. Seriously who would miss it? Most of the time when it tries to make sense it says something completely stupid that betrays the ignorance of the writers more than anything else.

I think there's both 'good' and 'bad' technobabble.

'Good' technobabble, to me, occurs when you want to convey these people are highly trained specialists, that really know their stuff. You know, when highly specialists technicians consult with one another about a problem that needs to be fixed quickly, they're not gonna stoop over and explain all the technical jargon to laypeople. When applied well, it aids in immersion, as one poster commented here. It doesn't need to be scientifically accurate, as this is a science fiction setting in the 24th century, but I appreciate it to sound like it at least makes some sense in context, even if I can't understand it fully.

'Bad' technobabble, to me, is when they employ technobabble with the apparent goal of obfuscating that the writers themselves have no idea what they're actually talking about and don't actually seem to care, as long as it sounds science-y, but they want the crisis simply as a plot device.

 

[Swedish Borg]

I think there's both 'good' and 'bad' technobabble.

'Good' technobabble, to me, occurs when you want to convey these people are highly trained specialists, that really know their stuff. You know, when highly specialists technicians consult with one another about a problem that needs to be fixed quickly, they're not gonna stoop over and explain all the technical jargon to laypeople. When applied well, it aids in immersion, as one poster commented here. It doesn't need to be scientifically accurate, as this is a science fiction setting in the 24th century, but I appreciate it to sound like it at least makes some sense in context, even if I can't understand it fully.

'Bad' technobabble, to me, is when they employ technobabble with the apparent goal of obfuscating that the writers themselves have no idea what they're actually talking about and don't actually seem to care, as long as it sounds science-y, but they want the crisis simply as a plot device.

Yes, the worst kinds of stories are the ones solved by technobabble."Technobabble" is ok, I guess, as ambient noise ut it shouldn't be the solution to the heroes problem.

 

[Coops]

I'd have joined the Maquis if it'd been me, that whole storyline made the good guys look like bad guys and no amount of Patrick Stewarting from the Captain ever changed my mind.

 

[Swedish Borg]

I'd have joined the Maquis if it'd been me, that whole storyline made the good guys look like bad guys and no amount of Patrick Stewarting from the Captain ever changed my mind.

I don't like Picard in TNG, the sanctimonious way he justifies anything... Things that at times make my skin crawl.

 

[Coops]

I don't like Picard in TNG, the sanctimonious way he justifies anything... Things that at times make my skin crawl.

I disagree, Stewart quite often has some pretty laughable lines but be manages to make them sound convincing. He just couldn't sell me on the whole Cardassian Treaty things, it made no sense.

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't like Picard in TNG, the sanctimonious way he justifies anything... Things that at times make my skin crawl.

That was kind of Gene and the way he saw the world. Picard was basically Gene's mouthpiece for the first few seasons, even after he was no longer involved with the show on a regular basis.

 

[at Quark's]

That was kind of Gene and the way he saw the world. Picard was basically Gene's mouthpiece for the first few seasons, even after he was no longer involved with the show on a regular basis.

That's why I would have loved a Picard/ Garak confrontation at some point. Both fiercely intelligent, but with very different viewpoints, and Garak with this special gift of pointing out the inconvenient grain of sand in the polished Federation views.

 

[Oddish]

Considering how often the Federation takes it in the hind end when they negotiate a treaty, maybe Picard should have joined the diplomatic corps.

 

[dupersuper]

Cloaking technology would be particularly useful to cargo ships who could cross enormous distances without the fear of being attacked by pirates. Note that Klingon cargo ships have cloaking technology, if them then why not ours?

Piracy isn't much of a problem in Federation space.

At least we know from "All Good Things" that the Federation probably dumped that treaty.

Well, in that alternate timeline. I haven't seen Federation ships cloaking in Picard or Lower Decks or Star Trek Online...

They've gotten over it by the time of Disco S3.

Well, the Romulans had been Federation members at one point by then (unless I'm misunderstanding the Nivar situation).

I disagree, Stewart quite often has some pretty laughable lines but be manages to make them sound convincing. He just couldn't sell me on the whole Cardassian Treaty things, it made no sense.

I had more of an issue when he was just going to sit back and let the planet be destroyed in Homeward, or when he almost does so in Pen Pals, or when he doesn't understand why Beverly revived the frozen people they found in Neutral Zone, or why she saved the Mintakin in Who Watches the Watchers...

 

[Lord Garth]

I'll watch "Spock's Brain" 10 times over watching any other episodes that are generally considered bad even by fans of the particular series said episodes belong to.