No, not you, Oddish listed it as one of the "competent" things Jellico supposedly did.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
No, not you, Oddish listed it as one of the "competent" things Jellico supposedly did.
Oh.
Well, then.
Regarding Data and his ability to command an XO who is insubordinate...
He did pretty damn good on the Sutherland when Hobson was clearly racist against him.
He did pretty damn good on the Sutherland when Hobson was clearly racist against him.
The idea that Jellico's treatment of Data isn't a recommendation because everyone should be like that really doesn't hold up to what actually happens on the show.
In addition to Pulaski's scepticism, Starfleet was of the opinion that Data was literally their property until a judge decided otherwise (and only did so after very heated debate), his career was suspiciously dead in the water in comparison to not just Riker but even Worf or Geordi or Wesley, and he had to fight to assert himself as Captain of the Sutherland because his subordinates didn't believe an Android could be a good Captain. It's pretty clear that there is intended to be a significant streak of anti-android prejudice in the 24th century, even if it is only a minority of people. (And you also see a lot of similar themes unfold in regards to intelligent holograms as well.)
In addition to Pulaski's scepticism, Starfleet was of the opinion that Data was literally their property until a judge decided otherwise (and only did so after very heated debate), his career was suspiciously dead in the water in comparison to not just Riker but even Worf or Geordi or Wesley, and he had to fight to assert himself as Captain of the Sutherland because his subordinates didn't believe an Android could be a good Captain. It's pretty clear that there is intended to be a significant streak of anti-android prejudice in the 24th century, even if it is only a minority of people. (And you also see a lot of similar themes unfold in regards to intelligent holograms as well.)
Probably not controversial but I'm loving that Trek has come full circle and now exists in TV World only again. I'm not convinced 'going to the cinema' as we remember it is going to survive the double bat'leth attack of Covid and online streaming. Even though there's still plenty of people who want to go and watch stuff the cinema industry was struggling beforehand and I think we're going to see lots of venues close down.
So, Trek on TV. Here's to the future
So, Trek on TV. Here's to the future
I mean, I never bought in to the idea of "Trek belongs on the small screen" line that was constantly tossed about. In every iteration there are ups and downs, and the format has not been my issue.
Totally agreed.
People tend to gravitate toward what they grew up on, for example. I primarily grew up on the TOS films, although I started with TOS in re-runs in the late 70's when I was very young. And, my "definitive" Star Trek experience is in the motion picture format. I like Trek on TV as well, but not nearly as much as a huge Trek movie event.
I can understand that.
In pretty much every major franchise, Trek or otherwise: Those particular iterations that set angry fans' teeth on edge? If those same viewers had never heard of whatever franchise they feel is being ruined, and came to whichever particular movie/series/whatever it is as a casual viewer of this new piece of sci-fi over here, they'd probably be perfectly, if casually, okay with it.
TNG and DS9, considered these days to be the best iterations of Trek, both had significant detractors when they started out. Most new Treks do, I think. The only one that seems to have been relatively well regarded right out of the gates is "Lower Decks".
Lower Decks is deliberately comfort food style to tickle the ears of Trek fans of the TNG era.
I don't think there's a must that Trek be on the small screen. However, IMHO what has helped trek historically has been its versatility - that it can go from action-adventure to character drama to comedy, all with the same characters.
Given how modern cinema works, it's highly unlikely a Trek movie will ever be made which isn't at least a wannabe blockbuster (something which was the case not just for all the Kelvin movies, but the TNG movies as well). I mean, even if there was a banging script which was a "TVH redux" involving the Kelvinverse - a light comedy with a relatively small budget - the salaries demanded by the cast would probably make it untenable.
Maybe the one exception is if they did an all CGI-movie, since that is a proven format for family-friendly comedy which also does quite well in the theater. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this eventually.
I completely agree and I think that's why I push back against the notion of "Trek's home is ____________" when the whole idea of Trek is that it can be that versatile storytelling platform. More than that that variety allows for more people to get to see it in a format that they like, whether big budget films, or TV shows. Star Trek strives in variety, not being boxed in to a particular format, which has been the tendency from all sides with it.
Considered by whom, exactly? TNG seems to have recently fallen out of favor, or at least lost some of its shine. DS9 is a niche/cult element of the franchise that still seems very polarizing. People either love it, or they are pretty indifferent about it. It's not universally loved.
Not sure I'd agree with this. It's not that simple.
Nothing wrong with the media equivalent of a plate of mac and cheese and chicken nuggets every now and then.
Nothing ever is. Every show, every episode, has people who dislike it. But in general, TNG and DS9 are considered to be the strongest entries of the TNG era (1987-2005). Not universally, though.
Of course everybody will have his own opinion on what the best iteration of Trek is, if something like that even exist and no iteration is "universally loved"
I agree that TNG is falling in favour with me, partly because of its episodic nature where the characters are often just tools to move the plot ahead, partly because it's 1980s mentality is quickly becoming just as dated and just as problematic as TOS' 1960s mentality, partly because the first two seasons and the seventh season are full of crap.
But personally I'd still call it the second best of 90s Trek (after DS9) and the third best of Trek in general (Yes I actually rank Lower Decks higher than TNG because I enjoy it more)
And yes, it a point can also be made for elements of DS9 being just as dated and/or problematic as things in TNG and TOS, but to me at least it has better writing and characterization.
I agree that TNG is falling in favour with me, partly because of its episodic nature where the characters are often just tools to move the plot ahead, partly because it's 1980s mentality is quickly becoming just as dated and just as problematic as TOS' 1960s mentality, partly because the first two seasons and the seventh season are full of crap.
But personally I'd still call it the second best of 90s Trek (after DS9) and the third best of Trek in general (Yes I actually rank Lower Decks higher than TNG because I enjoy it more)
And yes, it a point can also be made for elements of DS9 being just as dated and/or problematic as things in TNG and TOS, but to me at least it has better writing and characterization.
Last edited:
I'll agree that TNG and DS9 are widely considered the best Trek since TOS. But of all time? Eh. I love both and even I'm reluctant to rank either as high as TNG in any respects other than acting talent, budget and ratings.
More an observation than a judgement. But, I get annoyed more so when the rallying cry becomes "Do more like Lower Decks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Figure you meant TOS there.
My first exposure to Trek was the TOS movies, which included more focus on secondary characters (Uhura was awesome in ST III, and I still enjoy watching Scotty's transparent aluminum scene in IV), better visuals, and less outlandish plots. TNG was more of the same, and the other shows follow from there. So, I never had the same high regard for TOS that many do. But it certainly remains the benchmark for Trek.
It's like Connery as Bond. A viewer might enjoy Moore for the over the top plots, Craig for the gritty realism, or Brosnan for carrying a proper gun... but Sean Connery created the role.
Similar threads
- Locked
