What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
In all seriousness I felt the whole idea was to emphasise the loneliness of command, particularly in Voyagers circumstances, which is a good idea in itself and, probably through Mulgrews performance, I did get that, but unfortunately when its written in a such a crack-handed way it just came across as weird.
Speaking of Janeway getting some, they could have done an episode where she plays a character in a holo suite program who is a country singer of dubious morals on Earth in the 1970s.
This female country music singer has a boyfriend who is a ranch foreman but she sleeps with his rich oilman bosses' elder son in order to get a recording contrack.
Robert
This female country music singer has a boyfriend who is a ranch foreman but she sleeps with his rich oilman bosses' elder son in order to get a recording contrack.
Robert
What I find funny is that the Doctor insists that her holo-boyfriend is real but in that case when she said "Delete the wife", Janeway committed murder.
What I find funny is that the Doctor insists that her holo-boyfriend is real but in that case when she said "Delete the wife", Janeway committed murder.
That's why the holographic rights stuff they got into on VOY was just incoherent. I know everyone likes the Doctor, but holograms on Star Trek are basically just a more sophisticated version of Siri. It's a computer program. If any piece of technology on Star Trek could be argued to be sentient it's the ship's computer itself. Everything else is an extension of that.
Coherence is not Star Trek's forte like when the EMH is asking questions of the computer, the EMH IS generated by the computer, if he needs to know anything he could get the information internally without having to ask any questions, he wouldn't even need a connection like an external device like an android for example.
I must have missed her when I watched Dallas couple years ago. granted it was only one episode according to IMDB but still, I usually spot Trek actors right away, even ones that only had a couple of trek appearances.
The other day I watched a couple of episodes from Enterprise's third season -- a season that I think is horribly overrated -- and only now did I take notice of how absolutely abysmal the performances are from the actors playing the Xindi. Of course, I think some of the dialogue they have is just plain awful, too.
Trek veteran Randy Ogelsby, who plays Degra, just makes me cringe in so many of his line deliveries. Some that stick out are when he's talking to one of the sphere builders and he says, after she asks what they did to lose his faith, he says, "You never DESERVED my FAITH!" And then later, his terrible overacting when talking with Trip: "I can't change what happened to your sister or ANY of the seven million!"
Trek veteran Randy Ogelsby, who plays Degra, just makes me cringe in so many of his line deliveries. Some that stick out are when he's talking to one of the sphere builders and he says, after she asks what they did to lose his faith, he says, "You never DESERVED my FAITH!" And then later, his terrible overacting when talking with Trip: "I can't change what happened to your sister or ANY of the seven million!"
Trek dialogue is often described as being very Shakespearean and I'm an ardent defender of ENT but yeah...some of the dialogue in the series is downright awful.
The first time I saw that Dallas episode I just knew Mulgrew as Mrs. Columbo which I didn't watch much.
But later, soon after VOY started I saw that ep again and got a kick out of Jameway with that voice of hers being a country music singer.
Robert
Well, I don't think it lasted much.
Though I love both, I prefer TAS to TOS...
Recent controversial thoughts running through my mind on Star Trek: Star Trek needs to stop looking to its past for inspiration. Star Trek is so completely tied to past successes that it appears to be unable to see any other future than the small ideas presented in past successes like TWOK or TNG. Those two are considered "peak" Star Trek and need to be returned to again and again and that is not helpful for a franchise supposedly about humanity's future.
The Hoillyweird problem in a nutshell. Never take risks.
Star Trek should feel free to innovate, like for example introducing more and more sapient species that aren't humanoid at all. In a Silverberg novel, an alien professor looks like a giant spider and communicates with clicks or an aquatic (like in the Xindi arc) that would be in a fishbowl-like tank equipped with limbs, so it could move around in our world (wouldn't that be cool?). There's also the octopuses and maybe centaurs (half-horse half-man).... Using modern CGI effects they could make episodes where these creatures would have as much screen time as the regulars instead of a few seconds at a time (like in the Xindi arc)...
For once I approve of the world should in a sentence. Yes, Star Trek should have that freedom. However, it does not. It believes it has peaked with TNG and can never be that way again.
I'll one up you and say that both These Are The Voyages... and A Night in Sickbay are better than the Irish holodeck episodes
Similar threads
- Locked
