It's not at all about what I "prefer", it's about what the text literally says. Anything else is mere speculation.
I would have "preferred" that he not be straight. But, they didn't ask me.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It's not at all about what I "prefer", it's about what the text literally says. Anything else is mere speculation.
I would have "preferred" that he not be straight. But, they didn't ask me.
Neelix is not a bad character.
Star Trek was hurt by Serialization in the long run.
Janeway is a competent and inspiring captain.
The Berman era was the best in terms of overall quality.
Star Trek was hurt by Serialization in the long run.
Janeway is a competent and inspiring captain.
The Berman era was the best in terms of overall quality.
The Berman Era was the most consistent in quality, that's for sure. The Roddenberry and Bennett Eras wavered wildly and the Abrams and Kurtzman films and series are at best inconsistent so yeah, the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT Era was the most consistently enjoyable and dialed into making the best stories possible(even when it failed).
Hey it's starship porn why not?
Season 1 Michael Burnham wasn't bad. I like Michael Burnham
Why are the food replicators on disco fitted with comments? Every time a meal is dispensed it makes a funny comment.
Cardassian women are interesting
Neelix wasn't as bad as all that. A lot of people liked him. I think that he just rubbed some people the wrong way. And, every series seems to have a character who isn't that well-liked: Wes, Bashir, Neelix... I expect the new Treks have them as well.
Serialization was the future of television, like it or not. Whether it hurts Trek in the long run remains to be seen.
Janeway was a competent and effective captain... most of the time. She certainly did make some questionable decisions.
A good character is not necessarily a "Good Character". Barbosa in the Pirates franchise was interesting because he was complex. but not the Good guy. A good villain, or even semi-villain can bolster any story.
Moff Gideon in The Mandalorian is a pretty reprehensible character but also a good one in terms of interest level and general storytelling.
Neelix is painted by some as creepy and incompetent-despite him being extremely helpful-almost desperately so.
He helps counsel Seven and B'lanna, asks Tuvok for security training(you know so he can be of use during emergencies or combat situations), provides information and such as long as he can(and outright does something less than ethical out of fear when he is at the limits of his knowledge), he uses his ship a few times to help the crew out of jams.
Neelix can come across as annoying, but he never acts out of malice, at most he doesn't respect people's boundaries or cues(sometimes), and genuinely wants to be as useful as he can be.
That's a good character in my book.
One example where serialization or rather the expectation of serialization hurts is Voyager's living witness-its a really great episode, one of Voyager's best and up there with the best overall-but people talk about the mobile emitter because they expect everything to be entirely consistent(or at least explained) and don't just appreciate the episode-or even talk about its themes or characters or whatever.
He helps counsel Seven and B'lanna, asks Tuvok for security training(you know so he can be of use during emergencies or combat situations), provides information and such as long as he can(and outright does something less than ethical out of fear when he is at the limits of his knowledge), he uses his ship a few times to help the crew out of jams.
Neelix can come across as annoying, but he never acts out of malice, at most he doesn't respect people's boundaries or cues(sometimes), and genuinely wants to be as useful as he can be.
That's a good character in my book.
See, Trek does best when its episodic morality allegories or exploration of sci fi concepts and such. While DS9 did well with a serialized war arc-it was in contradiction to the Trek of yore.
One example where serialization or rather the expectation of serialization hurts is Voyager's living witness-its a really great episode, one of Voyager's best and up there with the best overall-but people talk about the mobile emitter because they expect everything to be entirely consistent(or at least explained) and don't just appreciate the episode-or even talk about its themes or characters or whatever.
The Berman era produced a solid baseline-you have good episodes, average to forgettable, classic "great episodes" and the occasional memorable "bad episode". Meaning I can sit and watch say three episodes of Berman trek-TNG, DS9, and VOY in a night, and it not wildly different in terms of how good it is.
Janeway cared about her crew's welfare and was more than willing to fight on their behalf, she also didn't make a beeline to earth but instead took advantage of her situation to explore, do science, make diplomatic contact, you know Starfleet's purpose-she was just going home doing it, instead of going outward away from home. If I were on Voyager I would be very confident in Janeway personally.
Last edited:
Yep I'd be very comfortable with Janeway as the head of a ship I was on. She was a competent captain
To each their own.
Indeed. I realize that many will find my position odd, to say the least. It's an extremely fine line to walk for me of entertaining character and annoying but entertaining. Merely being complex is not sufficient entertain. There needs to be a reason behind it. Garak got close, but often was used as duplicitous for the sake of it. Barbosa got close in the 5th film. Gideon is just a bastard.
Like Darth Vader. We knew he was a murderous bastard long before the Prequel Trilogy and different Clone Wars series showed his origins as Anakin Skywalker but Vader somehow ended up as the face of the Star Wars franchise even during the late '70s through mid-80's. A maimed and crippled cyborg who'd been guilty of war crimes and murdered people on camera yet was a symbol for Boomer and Gen X audience members who rallied around him as an avatar of cool.
Tilly would make a good captain one day
She'd be so fucking cool.
Not controversial, but she is one BIG reason keeping from being at least 50/50 liking DSC. Is there a TV trope name for less-physically-attractive, often-heavy, borderline, neurotic sidekick? (The reason I bring up the "heavy" is it pisses me off to no end that heavy=comical in movieland. Like Jenny Anydots, the Gumby cat in the Cats movie. She isn't that baffoonish in the poem/show. Sorry, I digress.)
Wonder Woman had that sidekick in her first movie, and even though I'm a guy it seems sexist/demeaning. Like the crazy lady trope. I don't go to movies much, so I'm sure others could think of other examples.
Anyway, aside from Tilly annoying me as a character (as did Neelix!), she annoys me by existing as a character in the first place.
Wonder Woman had that sidekick in her first movie, and even though I'm a guy it seems sexist/demeaning. Like the crazy lady trope. I don't go to movies much, so I'm sure others could think of other examples.
Anyway, aside from Tilly annoying me as a character (as did Neelix!), she annoys me by existing as a character in the first place.
Tilly isn't really heavy (or a sidekick or less physically attractive) so I don't know what any of that has to do with her.
I think it's awesome, but she is heavier than the vast majority of actresses on tv. Her weight has even been subject of threads/comments here. In classic, accepted, cross-cultural standards of female beauty, also less so than the vast majority of actresses on tv/movies.
I by no means find the actress unattractive. Just stating what seem obvious choices for a trope -- if it is one -- I dislike because it seems super sexist.
Please understand I am no great shakes in the masculine beauty department. I am just acknowledging the truth about entertainment-world beauty standards, and the obvious-to-me fact that she was created/cast as the less attractive, neurotic sidekick (literally, Burnham's roommate, the naif ensign) which trope, if there is one, I really think is annoying and stupid.
If you find my comments annoying or stupid, so be it. I wouldn't be commenting on someone's shape or beauty if it weren't cast on purpose as being part of the sidekick/neurotic lady trope.
Notice how they changed her appearance when she was supposed to be "hot" Killy.
I by no means find the actress unattractive. Just stating what seem obvious choices for a trope -- if it is one -- I dislike because it seems super sexist.
Please understand I am no great shakes in the masculine beauty department. I am just acknowledging the truth about entertainment-world beauty standards, and the obvious-to-me fact that she was created/cast as the less attractive, neurotic sidekick (literally, Burnham's roommate, the naif ensign) which trope, if there is one, I really think is annoying and stupid.
If you find my comments annoying or stupid, so be it. I wouldn't be commenting on someone's shape or beauty if it weren't cast on purpose as being part of the sidekick/neurotic lady trope.
Notice how they changed her appearance when she was supposed to be "hot" Killy.
Similar threads
- Locked
